Libertarian Theory of War. 2. Theory of War.
So, you have entered a war. You are in conflict with someone and are ready to kill them. Perhaps this someone is also ready to kill you. The stage of uncertainty, when you and your opponent were perhaps preparing for war, has ended, and now your reality has become significantly simpler. Many value the state of war for this simplicity and clarity.
However, it is for this very reason that a started war is best ended as quickly as possible; otherwise, there is a great chance you will become accustomed to solving any problem by military means, while direct violence is a good tool only for a rather narrow class of tasks. Also, a constant state of war makes you extremely vulnerable to external actors, upon whom your resource supply will depend once you exhaust your pre-war stocks, and this is unlikely to be the goal you set for yourself when entering the war.
2.3.1. Target Priorities
As already mentioned, the goals of war are strictly linked to its causes, which we divided into the categories of “resources,” “hatred,” and “power.” Since you have entered a war, you know the goal of the war, and from this primary goal, you can build intermediate goals, which will become the means to achieve the primary one.
However, in the course of the war, it may seem that the main goal is unattainable, or, conversely, too modest, and that you are capable of achieving more. Therefore, you need to be ready to revise the main goal of the war at any moment, and along with it, the intermediate ones. But this readiness should not be abused, because the movement toward achieving the previous goals has already led to the expenditure of certain resources, so hesitation itself will somewhat weaken you.
Getting distracted during the war by side goals that do not lead you to the achievement of the main one, but simply bring some additional benefits, is a tempting but dangerous tactic. Firstly, it is a waste of resources that may not be sufficient to achieve the main goal. Secondly, many may consider that you seem to like war as such, and that all talk of a just cause for war and a goal proportionate to that cause is conducted merely as a smoke screen. Such considerations may reduce the number of your allies and multiply the number of your enemies. Or it may happen that, seeing your attitude toward war, libertarians will become your new enemies, and those whom libertarians consider enemies will become your new allies. This may be an unimportant factor for you, but the target audience of the book is libertarians. For them, it is important.
2.3.2. Choice of Means
The means of waging war are strictly determined by its goals. If the means employed are unsuitable for achieving the goal, then either you were mistaken in the choice of means, or you are actually trying to achieve some other goal.
Goals can be achieved by various means. Naturally, all other things being equal, preference should be given to those means that lead to the goal most quickly, cheaply, and reliably; however, in practice, a compromise will almost certainly have to be sought. Nevertheless, some recommendations can be given with considerable confidence.
For example, if you are facing a primary opponent and their allies, you should make it clear to the latter that the claims against them are minimal, that this is not their war at all, and that it is in their interests not to provoke you, to stand aside, or even to exit the confrontation entirely. The same considerations apply to the opponent’s subordinates, especially those who are forcibly mobilized.
Or, for instance, when assessing the means at your disposal, you should consider two opposite scenarios—one in which you spend resources at a rate no higher than the rate of their replenishment—and one in which you use them with maximum decisiveness. It is better to end wars as quickly as possible, but spending all your potential before the opponent exhausts theirs is fraught with the most negative outcome.
The best scenario is one in which you spend resources at a pace sufficient for the effective defeat of the opponent, while remaining below the pace of their replenishment.
2.3.3. Resource Mobilization
War is a conflict in which people are ready to kill. War also requires many resources for its conduct. Resources can be obtained through both economic and violent methods. During a war, economic activity can be seriously hindered. From this arises the tendency to obtain the means of waging war through military methods. This principle is historically formulated as “war feeds itself.”
For libertarians, such an approach presents a serious ethical problem. The violent seizure of resources necessary for waging war from one’s military opponent is quite easy to justify. However, the seizure of necessary resources from those who are not acting in the war on the side of your opponent is no longer compatible with libertarian principles. It can be justified only in situations of vital necessity, when that which is not currently vital to the person from whom it is taken is seized, and with an unconditional promise of subsequent compensation, within the framework of an amicable agreement or by court. And even in this case, the person from whom it is taken has every right to resist the robbery by any means up to lethal ones.
In the vast majority of cases, it is permissible for a libertarian to obtain resources for waging war only within the framework of voluntary transactions—through exchange, as a gift, or as a loan. This is a serious restriction; therefore, a libertarian preparing for war must save seriously to accumulate the necessary resources, and one who has entered a war must actively form a support group around themselves to be able to hold out longer.
2.3.4. The Beginning of War
So, you have attacked your opponent to discourage them from encroaching on your resources, or to destroy them, or to achieve your own liberation. A much sadder option is also possible, where it was not you who attacked, but you who were attacked. How will these different scenarios of the beginning of war affect the course of military actions?
2.3.4.1. You are Attacking
A war for resources is the simplest. Your task is to take them under control with a swift, sudden strike, ensure their reliable defense, and immediately begin peace negotiations. Or, if the goal was to discourage encroachment on your resources, the task is to quickly inflict significant economic damage and, again, begin peace negotiations.
A war of hatred is also simple. You are focused on that specific subject you wish to avenge, and all others act simply as obstacles. The task is to kill them as quickly as possible, or humiliate them, or whatever it is you wanted to do with them—and then retreat. After that, begin peace negotiations with those who still consider you their opponent, preferably offering them generous compensation. After all, it may be unpleasant for them that they failed to protect their ally, and now they are being asked to forgo revenge for them—such a bitter pill should be sweetened.
In the case of a war for freedom, everything proves to be noticeably more complicated. You are acting against a powerful spirit named Stability; you intend to violate the sacred status quo, according to which you have no right to freedom because you never had any. An indefinitely large circle of people is possessed by this spirit, and it is not always clear who exactly to fight and how. So, the first thing to do is to clarify exactly who will be the enemy in this war. This is why wars for freedom usually begin with a declaration of independence, then an ultimatum is issued to those presumed to have the right to recognize your freedom and impose this recognition on their subordinates, demanding they do so within a specified period, and only after the ultimatum is rejected does it become clear whom to attack. The element of surprise is, of course, lost. Moreover, the very fact of issuing an ultimatum may be considered the start of military actions, and the first act of force in the war will not be yours.
Unfortunately, conceding to the opponent the opportunity to strike first usually turns out to be the necessary price for the right to start a war of liberation. However, such predetermination is good at least for the fact that one can try to direct this first strike into a void.
2.3.4.2. You are Attacked
If you are attacked, the situation is largely reversed. The opponent is interested in quickly achieving their goals with one sudden strike; therefore, your first task is to prevent them from doing so.
If this is a war for resources, the more insistent the pre-war claims of your opponent to them were, the more opportunities you had to protect them in advance. Now your task is to spend much less on defense than they do on seizure. As soon as you demonstrate to the opponent that further war is economically impractical for them, you should immediately offer peace negotiations, demonstrating maximum respect to the opponent and even some kind of compromise. At this stage, the greatest danger is the transformation of a war for resources into a war of prestige for your opponent, which, in turn, is a lightweight version of a war of hatred.
A war of hatred, if you are the object of hatred and accordingly the object of attack, will with a high probability become a war of hatred for you as well. Even if you manage to survive the first strike, it will only provoke the opponent to new ones. It is pointless to negotiate with them at first; only striving for total victory remains. And if you also fail to destroy the opponent immediately, you will have to focus on ensuring their allies abandon them. Simultaneously, it is still worth sending signs of symbolic respect to the opponent in the information space: they are a hot-tempered maniac, but they fight with dignity. There is a chance that when their first rage subsides, you will still be able to part peacefully, maintaining a frozen conflict—which means you will have the opportunity to better prepare for the next escalation.
The situation with a war for freedom is interesting. It is extremely atypical for libertarians to enslave anyone, except for exotic situations of restitution from an insolvent but capable defendant. However, some enslavement may be imputed to you and a war of liberation started against you, while in reality, it will be a war for resources or a war of hatred, where the goal will be to deprive you of a voluntary ally whose enslavement is imputed to you. The ally’s appearances in your support will be explained, for example, by Stockholm syndrome, or by the fact that you are holding hostages, or simply that you fooled them with your propaganda. Such conflicts rarely escalate into actual war; far more often they will be of low intensity. It is unlikely, for instance, that agents of your competitors would suddenly start killing your managers to protect your workers; it is far more likely that they would first feed the union, and then the union would initiate a strike.
2.3.5. Image of the Parties
In a global world, any war is a show. You are interested in making your position look more attractive than that of your opponent. In doing so, you are primarily interested in the attractiveness of your position in the eyes of your potential allies, as well as strong neutrals, especially if they are trading partners to you or your opponent.
Therefore, you will have to study the value systems and interests of those whom you wish to impress favorably, and provide them with interpretations of the events during the war that fit into their world picture, while simultaneously showing yourself from a positive side specifically for them. For different people, these may be different interpretations. At the same time, it is important for you to maintain the consistency of your narrative so that a close study of your statements does not create the impression that you have no values of your own and are simply saying what is profitable for you at a particular moment.
There is a chance that you will have to seriously consider the well-known advice “if you can’t win beautifully, just win.” If it is only a matter of sacrificing your image in the eyes of external potentially useful observers, that is one thing. If the option of sacrificing your own basic values for victory is considered, that is, of course, a much more difficult choice. It is quite likely that it would be more appropriate to retreat, especially if there is an opportunity to recover from the defeat in the future. But we will discuss exiting a war further on.