"Why We Fight" Says Volokh Blogger (Yeah Right)

by Liberty and Power

While some antiwar libertarians deserve criticism for failing to aggressively defend free speech in the infamous cartoon affair, the attempt by pro-war bloggers to seize upon it to justify current American foreign policy has even less credibility.

Dale Carpenter's blog at Volokh, titled “Why We Fight,” highlights a photo of a demonstrator in Kenya carrying a sign,"Freedom of Expression is Western Terrorism."

The implication (Carpenter can correct me if I misunderstand) is that the Iraq War is part of this"fight" for free speech. The chief problem with this view is that Carpenter's chief ally on the ground (the Iraq government) does not share this goal.

The Shi’ite dominated central government, and its chief guru Ayatollah Sistani have consistently and sharply criticized the Danes for publishing the cartoons. The democratically elected provincial council of Basra has been particularly vigorous in opposing the Danes and shows no signs of letting up. It has now demanded “the withdrawal of all Danish forces from inside Basra until the Danish Government apologizes to all Muslims in the world.”

Will the pro-war bloggers respond with equally righteous indignation against the actions of their tax-funded Iraqi allies? There is no sign that they will. At this point, they have pretty much ignored the entire issue.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

David T. Beito - 2/19/2006

The jury is still out on on Iraq. The rise of fundamentalist militias, jailing of dissidents in Kurdistan and elsewhere, the increase of sectarian tension (as indicated by a decline of Shia/Sunni marriages), does not bode well for an optimistic scenario that have "opened the door for freedom." In many parts of Iraq, that door shows every sign of closing.

I disagree with the argument that it is necessarily "rational" for us to "align" with far-flung nations even if their governments become marginally better. Such alignments have a very big price. They have drawn us into extremely expensive enterprises nation building, foreign wars, and thus have served to weaken, rather than strengthen, national defense.

john j trainor - 2/18/2006

You may notice from my earlier posts that I am not one of the refernced pro war bloggers who haven't noticed the issue of free speech, however much you might disagree. Stating the obvious is usually avoided and it's fair to say that the pro war set is aware that 18th century New England town assemblies will not be duplicated anytime soon in Muslim countries. It's worth saying that already in Iraq steps have been taken and things done which have opened the door to freedom,certainly wider than it was under Sadam. Historical precedent for aligning ourselves with nations who have practices, laws, and customs separate from our own is quite apparent, as is the rationale.

M.D. Fulwiler - 2/17/2006

There was not a word about fighting for democracy or freedom of expression when Bush announced his invasion of Iraq. Apparantly Carpenter is too busy fighting for gay marriage (which, of course, is a top priority as the country is collapsing and becoming less free every day), to notice "minor" points like that.

David T. Beito - 2/17/2006

Then let's have truth in advertising and acknowledge that many members of this alliance do not support the common "fight" for free expression. Right now, this is not the case. As the selective righteous anger in the cartoon case illustrates, pro-war bloggers are pretty ignoring this.

john j trainor - 2/16/2006

Gary, rather it's our chief battlefield, a preferable state of affairs in a situation, war, which usually limits options. You understand I'm not condoning such censorship or criticism but in a country not only with a far differnt culture but also with a religious divide that we can barely comprehend it is a little too easy to sit in our armchairs and bemoan the absence of a Milton, a Zenger, or a Mill. We may never see that, but we can do what allies do in spite of differences, join forces against a common enemy.

Gary McGath - 2/16/2006

It's understandable when a war-torn country restricts freedoms internally. But we're talking about a case of a country joining in an international movement to dictate restrictions on freedom in other countries. It's not as if Iraq is imposing "emergency restrictions" on Denmark in order to increase immediate safety.

I'd hardly call Iraq our chief ally; it's more like our chief burden.

john j trainor - 2/16/2006

Our chief ally? That formulation doesn't include our own values or the Danes I take it. Or do values and priciples have to match up inter country with mathematical precicion? In our magnanimity perhaps we can make allowances for the absence of libertarian freedoms in a country with a far differnt culture and where car bombs go off with regularity. A country in the front line of war, a phenomenon which has been known to affect liberties in this country. Let's just say we are fighting for reasons in part similar and in part different, which is probably true of most alliances.

Gary McGath - 2/16/2006

If Iraq doesn't want the military support of countries that permit the publication of the cartoons, that must include the US as well. So if we get our troops out, that should make everybody happy.