War: Limits of Participation

How can you tell if a war is just? A weighty question, to be sure. And one that cannot be answered easily, despite what some say.

One thing is for sure: we cannot accept the democratization of violence. Private security firms, such as Blackwater are unacceptable to me.

"If government contractors are accepted elsewhere, why not on the battlefield?" This is the general line of reasoning used to justify the use of contractors in place of soldiers. This of course already accepts the premise that somehow the business of government can and should be carried out by the private sector. This flirts dangerously with fascism, in my opinion. In fact, this premise is part of the reason for the drastic increase in the size of the government over the last century (another subject - more on this later).

Staying on point, if a war cannot be fought by those who volunteer for armed service, then it should not be fought. Period.

What about Afghanistan then? I think there was sufficient support by those who would be doing the fighting to justify it. If we had only one front in Afghanistan, my suspicion as a layman is that we would have made significantly further progress than we have so far and both the US and the world would be safer than currently. I suspect our troops would be fresher, more capable, less exposed to danger, and have higher morale if we as a nation were focused (nearly exclusively) on Afghanistan. Does this mean we should have gone into Afghanistan? Not necessarily, but that is a different question.

What about Iraq? Clearly the strains by the armed forces to recruit sufficiently indicates there isn't an overwhelming conviction by the populace that the war merits their participation. In a democratic republic this is important. It's not enough that our leaders are convinced of the righteousness of a particular course of action - they need the consent of the governed to enable it to be effected. Without this, leaders are helpless. This is an extremely effective way to limit the effective power of any government (especially dictatorships - check out Gene Sharp's From Dictatorship to Democracy for a terrific review of non-violent political resistance).

The current administration's response to this is to use our tax dollars (coercively obtained of course - when was the last time you were asked if you minded paying some more taxes?) to pay mercenaries to fight a war that we are unwilling to support directly. That is, "Oh, you don't like the war? Fine. Give me your money. I'll pay somebody else to do it."

Some might not even see anything wrong with this. Sort of like tending your yard, what's wrong with paying someone else to do it? In this case, the thing that is wrong with it is that the people paying for it (us) and the people spending the money (the government) are different. It's like having a neighbor repeatedly tend your yard for you (whether you want it or not), and charging you whatever they feel like, and having them dip right into your bank account without recourse to pay for it.

The draft is even worse, and thankfully not a current concern, despite Charlie Rangel's repeated blustering. The draft is like having a neighbor repeatedly force you to tend your own yard (whether you want it or not), charging you for the privilege, and raiding your bank account to pay for it. Even worse!

Then if a population is unwilling to support a war effort with volunteerism, what should be done?

Nothing. The government should operate within its limits, not repeatedly subvert those limits!

It's time to take back our liberty.

LESSON: RESIST.