This is the third newsletter Harry

Browne sent out after the attack on

The World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

This is so inflammatory, I have yet been able to insert my comments. My comments are to come shortly. I have inserted all italics.

May God have mercy upon your soul.

F r e e d o m W i r e

|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|

When Will We Learn? - Part III

    by Harry Browne

In yesterday's article, I pointed out that killing
innocent people is terrorism, no matter who does
it -- free-lance terrorists, an international
conspiracy, a foreign government, or our
government. It would be wrong for our government
to respond to this week's tragedy by committing
further acts of terrorism against innocent foreign
people.

Find the terrorist conspirators and punish them --
yes. Bomb innocent people -- no.

Yesterday I commented on some of the common themes
we're hearing now to justify rash action by our
government against foreign countries. Here are
some more of what I've received in my mail.

    Civil Liberties

"I don't mind giving up some more of my liberty in
order to put a stop to these despicable acts."

I understand your sentiments, but I respectfully
disagree with them -- for two reasons.

First, you have no idea what liberties are going
to be taken from you. And whatever they are, you
can have no expectation of ever getting them
back -- even if the underlying problem goes away
completely. For just one obvious example, income
tax withholding was instituted as a war measure in
1942, and it is still with us today.

Second, taking away our liberties rarely achieves
the goals used to justify the new oppression.
Because of the Drug War, our government now
rummages through your bank's records, looking for
suspicious transactions you may have entered into;
you and your property can be searched and seized
without a warrant, without being convicted of
anything, without even being accused of anything.
And yet drugs are as widespread today as when
these intrusions were put in place.

It's easy to say you support intrusions that you
believe aren't likely to affect you personally.
But I can assure you that any invasion of civil
liberties will affect _you_ more than they do the
truly guilty (who will quickly learn about the
invasions and how to circumvent them).

    World War II

"What about the situation in the 1930s, where the
British under Chamberlain tried to appease rather
than oppose Hitler, with horrible results?"

Many historians believe that if Chamberlain hadn't
signed the Munich pact in 1938, but had instead
gone to war immediately with Germany, an
unprepared England would have been defeated
easily. Instead, the delay gave England time to
get ready to resist Hitler -- and even then, a
better-prepared England just barely survived.

But "Munich" has become an all-purpose cliché to
justify striking out violently against any foreign
power that displeases our politicians: "If only
Hitler had been stopped at Munich!" (as though at
the time anyone had the resources to stop him). We
need something more substantial than clichés to
prevent future terrorist attacks.

"There are people like Adolf Hitler who are pure
evil. You can't hide your head in the sand and
pretend they don't exist. Our government must
intervene overseas to root them out -- just as we
did in World War II."

There are people with diseased minds in every part
of the world -- from your neighborhood right on up
to heads of state. Once you accept the idea that a
preemptive strike is justified, where do you stop?

It is easy to cite World War II as an example of
our government's proper intervention in world
affairs -- but only if you start the story in the
1930s, just as people are starting the terrorist
story at last Tuesday.

In 1917 World War I was winding down to a close.
German was suing for peace. A negotiated
settlement was close, and the world could have
returned to its pre-war borders and peace. But it
was not to be.

At that point Woodrow Wilson took America into the
conflict. That intervention changed history
irrevocably for the worse. Millions of fresh
American soldiers streamed into Europe -- tipping
the balance of power and overwhelming an enemy
exhausted from three years of war. Germany and
Austria surrendered, the German emperor fled to
the Netherlands, and the Allies imposed
devastating conditions upon a defeated Germany.

America's action transformed a functioning Germany
with Kaiser Wilhelm on the throne into a prostrate
Germany eager for revenge. And so a nation of
great artistry that had produced the likes of
Goethe and Wagner was willing to accept a dictator
who promised to help them get even.

The humanitarian spirit that propelled America
into a war to "end all wars" laid the groundwork
for two of history's worst murderers -- Josef
Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

Although no one can say for sure, it seems very
likely that if America had stayed out of World War
I there would have been no World War II. And
without that war and without a Soviet Union, there
would have been no Cold War, no Korean War, no
Vietnam War. The 20th century wouldn't have been
an era of perfect peace, but it would have avoided
being history's bloodiest 100 years.

Could Woodrow Wilson -- or anyone else -- have
foreseen all this in advance?

No, and that's the point. Once you embark on the
use of force -- for any purpose -- you have no
idea what will fly up out of Pandora's box.

If you don't look for the causes that precede the
events, you have no hope of ever preventing a
repetition of the events.

What the terrorists did last Tuesday was wrong.
But if we don't inquire into the background, and
instead go off around the world on a holy Jihad of
our own will unleash consequences none of us can
predict. But we can be almost positive that they
won't be to our liking.

"Don't you think that if we were to withdraw from
the Mideast, that eventually some Arab dictator
would unite the Arab-Islamic world (violently) and
pose a real threat to us?"

Arab dictators aren't going to give up their
fiefdoms to a single ruler. Nasser tried it with
the United Arab Republic, but it lasted only a
year or two. Bureaucrats in Europe love a central
authority because it gives them _more_ dictatorial
power. But that isn't likely to happen in the
Middle East.

And what you suggest could be possible anywhere in
the world. Does that justify the U.S. running the
entire world? (Speaking of a single dictator!)

"Isn't it occasionally right to intervene on the
behalf of people that are being massacred, such as
in Serbia?"

In a free country, you should be free to send
money -- or even yourself -- to any country in the
world to aid any cause you believe in (which,
incidentally, isn't completely legal under federal
law today). But the American government shouldn't
use your money to intervene or stir up resentments
for causes you may not believe in.

"The world is our business, we all live here.
Should people be suffering in East Timor or Iraq
or Ethiopia/Eritrea and we just stand by and let
it happen if we can do something? I don't think
so. Taking _more_ responsibility for all the
people of this planet and all the nations of the
world would be a better stance."

That should be your choice. You should be free to
help anyone anywhere in the world. But our
politicians should not have the power to inflict
violence on people in other countries in your
name -- making you a target of retribution.

"We are a world power and we must act like one.
This means being unpopular. This means intervening
in the world because we have a responsibility to
the world."

And it means having people attack us violently --
no matter how many security measures are taken and
no matter how many liberties you give up. Is that
what you want?

"You speak of our government meddling in other
people's affairs. Give some specific examples."

Our government been giving money and military
hardware to prop up dictators for over fifty
years -- including people like Manuel Noriega of
Panama, whom our government then kidnapped and put
in prison in America. And supporting the very
Afghanistan government that supposedly today is
harboring Osama bin Laden. Although a lot of the
support for dictators was explained as a way of
fighting communism, it continues today.

Yes, I know that often the people who eventually
replace the dictators are just as bad -- but that
doesn't justify our government giving your money
to either the dictators or their replacements.

Did you know that our government _still_ gives
foreign aid to Afghanistan? Yes, the same country
Bill Clinton attacked with Cruise missiles.

And we have troops stationed in almost a hundred
countries even today.

If dictators took over America, how would you feel
about foreign countries that helped keep those
dictators in power? How would you feel if foreign
troops were stationed in your city?

Do you really think there's anything strange about
foreigners who love McDonald's but hate our
government?

    Good Words

I'm thankful to everyone who took the time to
write me to voice a personal opinion -- for or
against what I've said. I'm sorry that the volume
of mail is so great that I couldn't possibly
respond and thank you personally.

Although I've focused here on a sampling of the
many complaints I've received, I've also received
many supportive comments. Here is one from Katie
Sweeney that makes an additional point.

"Thank you for asking the question that none of
the 'experts' or politicians or news media will
ask, which is: Just what have we done to make
these people hate us so much?

"The politicians say it is just because we're a
free country. That is the propaganda needed to get
everyone riled up to join the military and give
their lives in 'a battle of good vs. evil.' But
the truth is what you said, 'We can't allow our
politicians to bully the world without someone
bullying back eventually.'

"Today, I am filled with tremendous sadness. I am
sad for the people who lost their lives and for
their families and loved ones. But I am also sad
because I know that nothing is going to be solved,
and it will only get worse. The leaders will not
speak the truth, and I don't even think the people
want to hear it. The only talk is of revenge, not
of following your three wise suggestions of what
we should do. I feel very powerless to change the
course that history is taking -- and very
vulnerable to its consequences."

More to come, including what I believe we should
do.