Ivan Eland, the libertarian, has a very tendentious article over at the Huffington Post, reprinted at the Independent Institute website. The article addresses the the continuity between the Gulf War and the Iraq War. This is a reasonable position, however, the way he gets there and the conclusions are suspect in the extreme.

First he makes the claim that the reasons the U.S. went to war to roll back Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait were two: (1) the U.S. wanted to protect Saudi Arabia from further invasion and maintain low oil prices; and (2) George H. W. Bush was beholden of “Munich Syndrome,” the idea that if Saddam was allowed to annex Kuwait, other dissatisfied powers would be emboldened.

As to the first, he cites an economic analysis that indicates that the increase in the price of oil would have been cheaper than the cost of the war. As to the second, he (rightly) makes the claim that no super power can intervene everywhere.  But that doesn’t mean that a super power shouldn’t intervene somewhere.

The claim of Munich Syndrome is a smoke screen. The conflict was over the threat to the liberal international system and to preserve the principles of the United Nations. The United Nations Security Council was at its most effective, because U.S.-Soviet (Russian) rivalry was temporarily at low tide. The United Nations was able put into practice Articles 39-43 to address an interstate breach of the peace. It was a triumph of the IGO.

A series of coercive actions short of war had been taken through the U.N. to reverse the aggression and restore the legitimate government and borders of Kuwait: Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670 674 and 677. Iraq refused. And thus, the multinational coalition under United Nations authorization and U.S. command destroyed Iraq’s military and ejected them from Kuwait to restore the status quo. I’ll quote Resolution 678:

Noting that despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,

Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of international peace and security,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill to do so;

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

3. Requests all states to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 above;

4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 above;

5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Thus, the U.N. outsourced the ejection of Saddam from Kuwait, making the post-Second World War liberal international order actually work for a change in the absence of a super power rivalry on the UNSC. The only other time the U.N. authorized an action of this type was in 1950 that launched the Korean War, which happened only because the Soviet Union was boycotting the U.N. at the time.

Libertarians may abhor the United Nations as a Wilsonian project that threatens the Jeffersonian roots of the United States, but maintenance of the liberal international regime does not amount to Munich Syndrome.