Identifying the Real Bad Guys

by Brian Cohn
by Brian Cohn

Inertia is a powerful thing. It is quite possibly the best friend that the status quo has ever had when it comes to our political culture. We quibble and split hairs over the particulars of a certain governmental program or political platform, but Republicans and Democrats alike almost never get down to the fundamental nature of whether or not the issue at hand is a good thing to be undertaken in the first place. When things go wrong, the majority of us then pontificate on what should have been done better, but never whether or not the endeavor should have been embarked upon in the first place. Asking fundamental questions is a hard thing because it usually yields hard answers.

A recent example is the topic of a "60 Minutes" headline story about 3 American citizens who were shot down and captured while spying on the FARC in Colombia. The standard theme was promulgated: Only the lowest, most vicious thug would capture and hold Americans as hostages, videotape statements from the captives, and generally dare to defy the United States of America, which is involved in the gravely serious and indispensably just War on Drugs.

Dan Rather very predictably pointed out that all 3 men have families at home, turning up the sympathy factor for the average American and most likely causing great anger at the Colombian rebels. At one time, that would have been my precise reaction, but I am now just a bit too jaded to fall for the prevailing line. Why weren't the real questions posed about the situation? Why were those men in Colombia in the first place? The situation is plainly bad, but where does the blame lie?

The official patriotic answer is that because illegal drugs are so destructive, America has the right to monitor and combat the producers of these drugs wherever they may be. Anyone suggesting the contrary must be a crack-smoking commie terrorist. After all, those brave men are really protecting us by being over there, doing their duty and suffering for it. That's a comfortable conclusion for many, but it is unfortunately off the mark.

Let's consider a hypothetical scenario. Fidel Castro has a lot of political enemies who have taken to residing here on (marginally) freer shores. It is plain to see that they would like nothing more than to depose Fidel and bring him to absolute ruin. There are a great many Cuban Americans who work tirelessly politically and covertly to destroy the Communist regime and they do it from our soil. Using our patchy "Drug War" logic, Fidel Castro would be perfectly justified to not only spy on unfriendly ex-patriots, but to openly and defiantly disregard the sovereignty of the United States by flying spy planes over Little Havana, sending raiding parties to kidnap "criminals" and "enemies of Cuba," be they American citizens or not.

Somehow, I don't think too many of us would go for that.

So, while there is undoubtedly anguish on the part of the families of these three men, are we correct in directing our wrath toward Colombians who capture foreigners meddling and spying on them thousands of miles from their own country? Do we have any right to brand as terrorists the Iraqis that resist our rather longer than six month occupation of their country? Or might we be better off in questioning the wisdom of our own government that has embroiled us in a violent, intractable, perpetual "war" on drugs (only the ones the government says are illegal, mind you), or terror, or illiteracy, or toilets that use too much water? Should we not hold accountable the government that puts our citizens into unnecessarily dangerous situations? If, in the case of these men, they are privately contracted, should they or we be surprised that they found themselves in an extremely dangerous position? If you jump in the lion's den, you can’t get too angry at the lion for placing you on the menu.

This is not in any way to suggest that those who hold the 3 men hostage are somehow choirboys, but it does beg the question of whether or not they would have kidnapped the prisoners had they been with their families back here in their home states. What the average American refuses to recognize is that anti-American actions are not caused by a vacuum, or by the simple fact that we are "free." This situation is an unmistakable demonstration that our government, in our names, almost without fail instigates adverse consequences by its arrogant actions. We want it both ways. We assume the right and privilege to do whatever we want to whomever we choose whenever we desire, but we cannot imagine that anyone would ever resent us for doing so.

Finally, it is telling that the federal government would like to bring democracy to Cuba. The political mainstream considers freedom to be the right to vote for the ruler of our choosing; in other words, democracy. In truth, liberty is freedom from the government ordering individuals around. Try to resist the IRS stealing your income, and see how much liberty you and I have. Do we then have even half a leg to stand on to lecture, let alone interfere with another sovereign nation? And are we blaming the right people when others react to the misguided and unconstitutional actions of politicians in Washington?

October 16, 2003

Brian Cohn [send him mail] is a former Marine Captain who writes from Chattanooga, TN.

Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com