WAR AS RHETORIC AS SOCIALISM: Last week I posted on “war as rhetoric”–the idea that the US should conquer Iraq in order to send the message that Islamist/jihadist attacks or conspiracies against the US will provoke massive retaliation, thus leading Islamists to turn their ire against less superpower-level targets like various Middle Eastern governments. I don’t think this will work–click here for more. I’m still undecided about war with Iraq (leaning against, but there are a lot of excellent and troubling points/questions on both sides). But I do know that “war as rhetoric” is an appealing idea but ultimately a wrongheaded one. It reminds me of socialism, in that attempts to use force to do what can only be done through persuasion. There are some occasions where you need force, whether in law or in war; but there are far more occasions when only a change of mind or heart will actually be effective. That sucks–nobody likes to hear that the most obvious and quickly-understood actions won’t work (welfare; war). I used to talk about the difference between people who were libertarians in order to make their lives easier (people don’t interfere with me, plus I get to stop giving my cash to the poor), and people who were libertarians with the recognition that it would make their lives harder (because if the state doesn’t attempt to fulfill our obligations to the needy [materially or spiritually needy, i.e. all of us], then we have to fulfill those obligations ourselves). That’s obviously a simplistic division. (There’s much good in some manifestations of “don’t tread on me” libertarianism, to note only one difficulty.) But I do believe that refusing war-as-rhetoric, like refusing socialism-as-charity, is harder but necessary, because it’s the only way to get the results we really want.