Johnson said that while he wants to end the war in Afghanistan, that doesn’t mean he would necessarily stop drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, even though he believes they create more enemies than they kill.
“I would want leave all options on the table,” Johnson said.
So drones are a legitimate way to bomb people you can't see? I argue that if you want to make war and kill people the more personal the better. It makes you face the fact of what you're doing, and maybe reflect on why.
There was something a bit more noble when Kings rode into battle and risked their own hides. Nowdays we play push-button war and the people who die are the lowly "grunts" -- and innocent bystanders when our "drones" are less than perfectly precise, which is most of the time.
Never mind that Afghanistan is not a declared war. Neither was Iraq. I accept that we may need to go to war but The Constitution says for it to be legitimate Congress must declare war.
Let me be perfectly clear: No Libertarian can take the position that undeclared "wars" are legitimate other than in instances of "hot pursuit", which clearly does not apply here.
In other words I'll accept that you can chase someone who just attacked you for long enough to get Congress into session and ask for a declaration of war. But that's all.
But Johnson didn't stop there:
But if Johnson plans on leaving Afghanistan, how does he plan to leave the option of a drone campaign against al-Qaida elements in Pakistan on the table?
“So now you have the U.S. bases that exist in those areas, do we shut down those military bases? Perhaps not,” he suggested, taking an odd position for a supposed anti-war candidate.
That's insane. By what rights and what "strategic interests" do we maintain operating bases in Afghanistan -- manned with US troops?
One intervention Johnson said he supports is the U.S. mission to help capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army, which Johnson believes is arguably the “worst terrorist” group in the world.
“Based on what I know, yes,” Johnson said, indicating his support for the mission to capture Kony.
What aggression has that organization launched against Americans?
None.
But the crazy doesn't end there. Don't read his "policy" on Iran. He at the same time says they won't launch a nuclear weapon and then in the same breath says they don't want one.
Well, if they don't want one then why are we sanctioning them on trade? The only justification for doing so is that you believe they do want nuclear weapons.
Incidentally, I do believe Iran wants nuclear weapons. Given the fact that there are other nuclear technologies (specifically, LFTRs) that are (1) safer, (2) produce better-quality process heat and thus are more efficient (3) have burn-up ratios 10x higher or more than uranium-cycle plants, thus radically reducing the waste issues and (4) have been proved to work there is no reason to use the fuel cycle Iran (and everyone else) has chosen unless you want dual-use out of the technology.
That's a fact, and that Johnson doesn't appear to understand this fact makes him dangerous.
When you add all this up Johnson has his head sideways on foreign policy. Sorry folks, that's just reality. None of his position is Libertarian and the wishy-washy bull**** is a disaster for America.
If you want a Libertarian foreign policy I've got one to offer. Let's see if R. Lee Wrights -- or some other contender -- would like to pick this up. It's cogent, it's Libertarian and it both protects American interests and resolves the issues.
Try this on for size:
- We leave Afghanistan. Now. We have no business being there. Any excuse we had for being there expired with Bin Laden, and that was a poor excuse. Close it down and leave as fast as we can fly the boys out. Period.
- The Pentagon gets put on a diet. Here's the deal: 10% off 2011 spending levels right here and now for two years. Then 10% more every year, until it's down to half of its previous size. The Joint Chiefs will scream. That's fine -- they will argue we can't maintain our presence in East BuFu with that reduction. We're not going to. Over the next six years we are going to leave all of our foreign "encampments" in the Middle East and, with a few exceptions of defensible RDF emplacements for rapid response to small-scale incidents, we're bringing the boys home. After six years (when we're down to 50% of former spending) every bit of spending from that point forward must be justified on the premise of current threat posture given our realignment on an annual basis or it's gone. Any part of the military command that practices "spend it or lose it" has the entire command structure involved in that decision sacked instantly. (This, for those who are unaware, is the usual practice throughout the entire military -- and it is insanely wasteful.)
- The 10% reduction in years 1 and 2 ($75 billion per year) goes into direct support of LFTR and CTL (carbon-to-liquid) combined plant development. Do it as an "X Prize" style award with private firms providing the design and development. At the same time rework the NRC to get the regulatory crap out of the way that prevents these plants from being rapid-deployed. In years 3-6 the reduction is direct off the budget and after the sixth year the support disappears. Done.
- Once the CTL plants begin to come online we withdraw strategically from all oil-producing areas as replacement is achieved. Within five years we should be completely out. If Iran wants to go to war with Israel after that point (or vice-versa) that's between them and is none of our damn business. Ditto for the rest of the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter. To make sure private industry has the proper incentives make the following promise: In five years there will be zero military support for any oil, natural gas or other natural resource coming from any nation other than America. If you want any such support you will pay every nickel of the expense up front through hiring your own private force (e.g. mercenaries) and bear all risk associated with it (including them getting killed.)
- No military actions will be undertaken without a declaration of war other than for "hot pursuit" which will be limited to the time required to convene Congress and call a vote, up or down. This is what the Constitution demands and this is what will be followed. This needs no further explanation.
- Gitmo is closed tomorrow. We try all persons held there and elsewhere or we release them. There is no war, therefore there are no POWs. We either have probable cause to try and convict them or we do not. Period.
- The NDAA and Patriot Acts are disavowed by executive order and repeal demanded. You either arrest and try US Citizens for actual crimes you can prove or you shut the hell up and leave them alone. End of discussion.
Let's talk about what we get out of this path.
First, it's Libertarian. Libertarians demand that nobody (including especially The State) initiate force. This leaves us able to respond to immediate threats but denies the "endless war" crap. It's over and done right here, right now, period. If there's a legitimate and immediate threat (e.g. some jackwad decides to attack a US installation or US citizens) we can respond until we can get Congress involved and do it the right way.
Second, it gets us the hell out of the Middle East and everywhere else. If a bunch of savages want to kill each other that's their business so long as they leave us alone. We are not responsible for being the world's policeman. We have neither the moral or legal authority to engage in such. At the same time we make very clear that any attack upon US Citizens or US property, wherever located, will be treated as an act of war and responded to in accordance with The Constitution.
Third, it solves our energy problem which is the justification for being entangled in the Middle East and damn near everywhere else in the first place. We have no choice in this matter. We cannot simply walk off into the sunset without resolving the mess that we created over the space of 30 years. If we do there will be an attack on the delivery of oil to us within weeks or months and the economy will collapse. We must fix this, and do so in a durable and permanent way. There is exactly one way to do that given today's technology that we know will work and is not full of speculative crap. I'd love to simply let the market work in this regard but that's insanely naive and begging to have our nation's economy destroyed. There are people who hate us and would love to seize on this opportunity. As a result we must solve that problem at the same time we pull our military posture back to that of a defensive force ready and able to take on whatever may come, but not projecting force beyond our borders absent direct and immediate provocation and lawfully-declared war.
Fourth, it's workable. It is not "draconian", it is not "idealistic" and it is not "naive." It doesn't tell our military to cut 43% of their budget in year one, but it does tell them that they're going to get cut back as we withdraw to a defensive mission that comports with The Constitution and we're going to remain there. It maintains our force levels where they need to be for defensive purposes and demands that we use them only in accordance with The Constitution. It protects our energy resource needs in the short term and in the intermediate term removes all argument for foreign intervention as we become entirely, 100% energy independent for five hundred years into the future -- guaranteed. It also provides us a ceiling on price for that energy as we have enough thorium in the coal we burn now to perform this transformation without burning one ton of it for direct thermal purposes over the next five hundred years even with expected population growth and no per-capita energy use reduction.
You want a foreign policy that works? I just gave you one and I didn't ask to be Secretary of State first. When we demonstrate energy independence (and we will if we go down this path) at a cost that makes Middle East Oil look expensive (in terms of both money and treasure to insure someone doesn't blow it up) other nations are likely to choose our path at which point all those who want to blow each other up can go shoot sand, as that's all they'll have of value to fight with.
Johnson has his head planted between his buttcheeks on this because he's trying to assuage both Libertarians and "mainstream voters", while stroking off the military screamers who insist that we must spend a trillion in the next few years (at present growth rates) every year in order to "remain ready." You can't get there from here and Johnson knows it, but he doesn't have a cogent plan to solve the problem so instead he slithers along and hopes you don't notice.
The problem with our current posture is that we're in this position because we put ourselves there through a failed energy policy and that, along with the self-aggrandizement that comes with the purchase of lots of expensive toys that we then need to find a use for is not only idiotic, inhumane and indefensible but we also can no longer afford it.
It's time for a Presidential candidate to stand up and take this issue on once and for all.
That man is not Mitt Romney, Barack Obama or Gary Johnson.
