9/11 & "Blowback"

Lee Harris' Reflections on 'Blowback' at TCS Daily is a column that challenges the libertarian argument for non-intervention.

It is a bit simplistic (though Harris is wordy enough to make it look complex) to say that unintended consequences, a.k.a. "blowback," can come from not acting as well as acting. It ignores the fact that staying out of a fight does tend to keep you out of the line of fire.

Most of the wordier sections try to explain the anti-intervention viewpoint before Harris takes them apart. It almost looks like Harris is building a straw-man to argue against.

I think the anti-intervention principle is a good one. Yet, it does no good if you are put in the cross hairs. Which I hold is the valid reason for our involvement in the global war on terror. We are one of the targets of radical Islamic movements, and must act out of self-defense.

But, Harris' argument isn't a total straw man, as many anti-war advocates (sadly even some of the libertarian ones) debate from the point of view that all military action is wrong and can be justified.

There are anti-war arguments to suggest that we are not in enough danger to justify the risks of going to war at the moment. These arguments are the best foot to put forward for the anti-war movement. Yet it's not the dominant point of view expressed in those circles.

Libertarianism is often described as rejecting the cult of the omnipotent state (where one believes that the state can solve any and all societal problems). I also believe that one should not embrace the cult of the completely incompetent state either.