There’s no retreat here, dover. I stand by the claim that the US is the most horrific in terms of foreign policy in the past 30 years, in absolute terms.

Moving along, I think there are two broad arguments here in defence of US foreign policy. The first is the claim that US atrocities are justifiably motivated by self-defence of US ‘interests’. The second, which is the more pertinent on this thread, is the liberal idea that US foreign policy can be defended according to ‘humanitarian intervention’, democracy-building, etc. Both views share a presupportion of US exceptionalism.

Now, the argument by self-defence is fairly ridiculous. The two most serious attacks on the US in the past 100 years – Pearl Harbour and 9/11 – had nothing whatsoever to do with ‘communists’. There’s no credible argument that the US was at any immediate threat from the countries in which it ‘intervened’. These areas include Indochina, Central America, Chile, Bolivia, and Colombia, some of the Central Asian states, the Middle East, etc. Iraq, for instance, was supposed to have been justified according to WMDs and an attendant need to protect the US. It was only when this lie was exposed that humanitarian reasons were sought. Even then, there was no good reason to believe that Iraq posed an immediate threat. Iraq’s neighbours (previously attacked by Saddam) did not believe so, nor did UN weapons inspectors. US ‘intelligence’ was derived by cherry picking the statements of dissidents and exiles. Iraq was a country that had been subject to no-fly zones for years, and whose military capacities were crippled. So, even in the case of Iraq, where the self-defence argument was more prominent than elsewhere, it really doesn’t hold any water. We should also note the ‘blowback’ caused by US intervention, of which 9/11 was a byproduct.

The humanitarian argument is even more ludicrous. The humanitarian situation in places like Iraq and Afghanistan has actually deteriorated post-invasion. Only an idiot would claim that US-backed death squads in Colombia, Nicaragua and El Salvador are spreading democracy as they rape and torture their way through the countryside. Likewise, US support of scumbags like Hosni Mubarak and Islam Karimov is clearly an impediment to democracy (both leaders have brutally opposed pro-democracy activists).

We can discuss specific examples at greater length, but there’s no serious case for US atrocities being justified by either self-defence of liberal-humanitarianism. Strictly speaking, US exceptionalism requires a suspension of liberalism, since it abolishes universalism for one reason or another. ‘Our’ liberty is held to be of greater value than that of the Iraqi/Afghan/Nicaraguan or whoever. In this respect, Rothbard and Mises are far more coherent than the cruise missile liberals like Geras (or indeed, Mill) who insist that ‘we’ bomb or rule ‘them’, for their own good.

Not many people follow Rothbard. His ideas went from pragmatism (don’t get involved in shitfights) to reductio ad absurdum (all war is wrong).

He’s not libertarian anyway. He essentially wanted to ban banking.

I take it you’re sarcastically describing Obama’s America, Homer?

Have we abolished corruption here?

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/03/05/libertarian-foreign-policy/comment-page-4/#comment-22133

You’re now retreating from what you initially said, THR, which is welcome, but don’t feel offended if I recognise as a retreat nevertheless. You said that the US was “absolutely” the most horrific regime in the last 30 years, not relatively speaking, the most horrific. So don’t hide behind “similar” or “scales”; you exposed your slip by saying “absolutely”.

You and dave both seem utterly confused, or hypocritical, or both. You suggest that, because some regimes (‘communist’ or ‘genocidal’) are repressive, the US needs to enact its own mass repression in order to save them. Are you suggesting that the US political and economic system cannot exist unless the US military and the CIA flex their muscles around the world?

In fairness, I want to concede this point if only in recognition of your own ‘mastery’ here but I won’t. The ‘you’ that refers to me above should refer to Dave since I didn’t raise the point you’re addressing, Dave did.