Blogs > Liberty and Power > The Antiwar Hayekians Proven Right Again

Jul 31, 2006

The Antiwar Hayekians Proven Right Again


by Liberty and Power


Taking their cues from the insights of F.A. Hayek, antiwar libertarians warned in 2003 that the Iraq war would produce unintended consequences for those who supported it. One of the chief hopes of pro-war conservatives and libertarians at the time was the prospect of new allies for the U.S. in the Middle East.

Three years later, this is not proving to be the case, even among the Kurds, much praised as"loyal friends" of the United States.

President Talabani, a Sunni Kurd, has now joined the parade of Iraqi leaders who have cast their lot with Hezbollah.

According to a news report, he has expressed "sympathy and support to our brothers in Lebanon against the Israeli aggression......We support them in getting rid of the effects of this aggression and imposing their sovereignty."


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Sudha Shenoy - 8/1/2006

1. If the neocons et al really thought that (a) Iraq would become an American clone because the US had invaded it (b) that other Middle East countries would then follow & become American clones as well, then: they _demonstrate_ their sheer contempt for these non-Americans. The peoples of the Middle East aren't worth the trouble of even reading a single book about their society, culture, religion, history. At least the Brits _studied_ the peoples they ruled.

2. If neocons et al really believe that Afghanistan is en route to becoming an American clone, this again _demonstrates_ their contempt for these non-Americans. Again, people not worth even the reading of a single book.

3. Are the neocons & their ilk even coceptually capable of dimly realising that there may be something out there which is, not, perhaps, -- America?

David T. Beito - 8/1/2006

Quite right. I visit (all too often) right wing websites such as Free Republic and see them often quote the wacky comments of the Iranian PM.

Very rarely, do they quote similar statements from Afghan and Iraqi leaders. The Afghan convert issue created a brief stir which quickly went away after his defacto expulsion.

These pro-war conservatives are remarkably or forgiving or, in your words, intentionally blind, to all of this.

While some antiwar critics (including me) initially supported going into any Afghanistan, it has long been apparent (perhaps it was from the beginning) that the U.S. continuing presence there is counterproductive.

Jason Pappas - 8/1/2006

Of course they didn’t think about it.

Did they think about who they were supporting in Afghanistan? The Northern Alliance headed the oppressive fundamentalist government prior to the Taliban and there were no signs that they’ve changed their values. Back in late 2001, women’s rights groups from the area were appalled at our government’s support of the previous theocratic oppressor. Since the NA's return to power there’s been a continued crack down on anti-Islamic critics and those calling for woman’s rights that was being ignore outside the country. It wasn’t until a Christian convert narrowly escaped a death sentence that people realized a fundamentalist oppressive government once again controls Afghanistan.

Yet many administration supporters still believe that we are bringing a liberal democracy to Afghanistan. There is also is blindness across the political spectrum as opponents of Iraq hold Afghanistan up as an example of the “good war” against those who supported aggressive acts against our nation. Such selective critics believe nations-building will go well in a country where we were right to respond with military force but not in a country were the legitimacy of a military response is questioned. Oh, yes, I just heard yesterday that NATO is stepping up troop levels in … Afghanistan. The NATO commander gives a time frame of 3-5 years to achieve his objectives.

Ideological blinders come in all shades.

David T. Beito - 8/1/2006

They probably didn't think about it. My sense is that they were so optimistic that the Iraq war would so quickly transform the Middle East via a chain reaction for pro-American democracy, that the Israeli/Arab problem would just as quickly disappear. Sloppy thinking, or non-thinking, all around.

Sudha Shenoy - 8/1/2006

Did neocons & other pro-invasion types _really_ believe that a post-Saddam Iraqi govt would support the Israeli govt? Were they _that_ ignorant? No wonder Iraq's such a mess under American indirect rule.