While I believe that “how libertarian” a candidate is shouldn’t be the only deciding factor in determining whether to vote for them, I feel it’s important we discuss it more than “so-and-so’s position on this is not libertarian”, both with regard to their position on it and whether they address it at all. I recognize this thread will likely turn into a huge argument, and if people can provide me with information to alter my analysis, I will be happy to change it. (If I’m slow in doing so, I won’t be offended if other LFV writers do it, though I’d prefer it if those officially affiliated with certain campaigns didn’t do so, for obvious reasons.)

The three substantial candidates I consider remotely libertarian are Steve Kubby, Ron Paul, and George Phillies. (Despite others including Christine Smith as a substantial candidate, I have seen functionally no presence from her.) The standard I’ll use for “libertarian” will be the LP platform, which I recognize is by no means perfect, but it gives me a set of issues to work with. I’ll consider the candidates in alphabetical order. (more…)

George Phillies has released a new position paper on Iraq. Unsurprisingly, it advocates leaving immediately, the only principled and pragmatic option:

“For three thousand Americans, their relatives, and their families, peace with Iraq is now too late. Those three thousand Americans made the ultimate sacrifice for their country: They died fighting a pointless war in a foreign land. We cannot undo the sacrifice that they made. We should seek to ensure that more Americans do not go forth, courageously, only to make the same sacrifice in the distant desert sands of Iraq.

Our soldiers in Iraq face hazards unknown in past wars. They are under constant attack. No matter how often George Bush claims that we are winning, the number of effective attacks against us continues to climb, in the past year from 70 to 180 per day. Worse, that count of attacks does not include vastly more “violent acts” committed against us. Those violent acts apparently number more than one thousand a day. Over the course of a year, that’s two violent acts for each serviceman and each servicewoman in Iraq. No matter where our troops go, to Iraq’s teeming cities, to the remote wastes of Al Anbar province, or even to their bases and bunkers, Iraqi guerrillas continue their incessant war on our men and women.

There are no front lines. Our opponents wear no uniforms. Except when they are actively shooting at us, they simply blend in with their fellow Iraqis. Our brave men and women have no way to tell friend from foe, no response except to wait and watch.

For our soldiers, sailors, and airmen overseas, not to mention their families and friends, this is a war that tests people’s spirits. In World War II and Korea, there were front lines. In Viet Nam, there were areas where the Viet Cong was inactive. In the Iraqi capital, our people take refuge in the Green zone, protected by massive berms and razor wire, but the Green Zone is regularly attacked.

Our original war aims, whether sensible or misguided, at least made sense in English. We invaded Iraq to pursue President Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. We invaded Iraq to end collaboration between Iraq and various terrorist groups. We invaded Iraq to remove President Hussein for power.

We did those things. There were no WMDs in Iraq. The Iraqi government hated Al Qaida. President Hussein had nothing to do with September 11. Now President Hussein has had his appointment with the hangman. The original mission may have been pointless, but that’s no fault of our servicemen or their relatives and families.

It’s time to bring the War on Iraq to an end. It’s time to bring our men and women home from Iraq. No matter when we leave, the Iraqis will still face their national problems. It’s no criticism of our military’s dedication or courage to say that further fighting is futile. Iraq’s problems are problems the Iraqis must solve for themselves. Our intervention only wastes American lives.