Blog

Bryan Caplan – War Negligence

The Negligence of War and Peace

Bryan Caplan

Sep 21, 2026

I was still in college the year of the Gulf War. At the time, I opposed the war; and in hindsight, I still do. But I freely admit that the U.S. planned its war carefully. They assembled over half a million troops, got buy-in from almost all their allies, and after four days of ground combat, the U.S. was totally victorious.

After victory, however, conflict with Saddam Hussein persisted for 12 more years. Why? Because although the U.S. had a careful plan for the war, they decided to wing the peace. There was a confused combination of sanctions, no-fly zones, demands for WMD inspections, and periodic bombing. If not for the totally unrelated 9/11 attack, Saddam Hussein might still be in power today. If the U.S. had any plan for peace after the Gulf War, it wasn’t much of a plan.

Poor peacetime planning led to another war — and an even more impressive military master plan. In 2003, using only 250,000 troops, the U.S. achieved full regime change in less than a month. While their list of active allies was much shorter than in 1991, they clearly weren’t necessary.

The shock-and-awe military performance of the U.S. was matched only by its truly harebrained plan for peace. Guerrilla warfare and sectarian violence began almost immediately and lasted for many years. Instead of installing a reliably pro-Western government, the U.S. quickly handed power over to the Shiite Islamist Nouri al-Maliki. He proved to be uncooperative, incompetent, and power-hungry. While he desperately needed U.S. military support, he went out of his way to antagonize his benefactors.

In the same vein, the U.S. had little trouble engineering the military overthrow of the Taliban or Gaddafi. But their plans for post-war Afghanistan and Libya were little more than wishful thinking. And to belabor the obvious, it showed.

You could consider “Since 1990, the U.S. has carefully planned its wars, yet poorly planned for the aftermath” a mixed compliment. But when the lives of millions hang in the balance, it’s a harsh condemnation. Actual war means killing a lot of innocent people — and that cannot be justified unless you have high confidence that the long-run effects are very good. Truly, with great power comes great responsibility.

That has long been my view, and I haven’t changed my mind. But Trump’s Iran War really does put all of the wars of my adult lifetime in a new perspective. Why? Because for the first time in decades, the U.S. has failed even to competently plan for the war! Before February 28, at least Iran wasn’t attacking its Arab neighbors. Oil freely flowed through the Strait of Hormuz. Now, over six months after killing much of the Iranian leadership, the U.S. has no idea how to even get back to square one. Alternating between sour grapes and empty threats may confuse the new Iranian leadership, but that’s about it. I wouldn’t be surprised if this conflict runs into 2028. Nor would I be surprised if the U.S. simply withdraws and hopes that its allies can somehow make peace on their own.

But even if the war ends today with a durable restoration of the pre-war status quo, the U.S. government has reached a new level of negligence. It used to demonstrate selective care: When we fight, we win — and win quickly and decisively; we just don’t know what to do after we win. Now it can’t be negligent after victory, because there will be no victory. Instead of learning from past failures, it has become a model of failure for future leaders to study. If they’re the kind of leaders who bother.

Susan Elizabeth (Doherty) Elwood – RIP

jump to Classical Archive Home Page

from: https://www.bibberfuneral.com/memorials/susan-elwood/5747620/

Susan Elizabeth (Doherty) Elwood, 79, passed away peacefully on September 17, 2026, after a brief illness.

Born in Worcester, Massachusetts, on August 24, 1947, Sue was the daughter of the late Richard Doherty and Dorothy (Donahue) Doherty Savage. Following her father’s early passing, her mother married William Savage, who proved to be a wonderful and caring father throughout her life.

On June 7, 1969, Sue married the love of her life, Robert Elwood. Together, they built a home filled with love and warmth until his passing in 2006. In 1980, the couple built a beloved cottage in Moody Beach, Maine-a place that held a special spot in her heart. Sue fulfilled a long-time dream in 2021 when she moved to Maine full-time to be closer to her children and grandchildren.

Sue dedicated her life to caring for others as a Registered Nurse. She began her career at Worcester City Hospital and went on to make a lasting impact working for Elder Home Care, and as a Certified Case Manager for Cigna and Fairlawn Rehabilitation Hospital. Just a day before her passing, Susan was deeply honored to be recognized by the Southern Maine Nurse Honor Guard for her decades of compassionate service.

Beyond her professional life, Susan was a woman of quick wit, warm conversation, and vibrant passions. She could strike up a chat with anyone, anywhere, and was famous among family and friends for her notorious “Irish whisper,” which inevitably made its presence known at the most inopportune times. An avid reader who loved sunny days at the beach, she was a dedicated fan of the Red Sox, Jeopardy!, crosswords, and daily Wordle games. Susan also had a great love for comedy; she faithfully recorded the late-night monologues every evening-never missing Stephen Colbert-and checked off a major bucket list item in the summer of 2025 when she saw John Mulaney live in Portland, Maine.

Susan is survived by her three devoted daughters, Erin Elwood, Shannon DeLello, and Meghan Hubacz and her husband, John. She leaves her six cherished grandchildren, Madison and Alexander Bernard, Sean and Elizabeth DeLello, and Rachel and Andrew Hubacz. Sue was lovingly surrounded by her brothers, sisters, and their spouses through the end of her life.

A private celebration of Susan’s life will be held in the near future. The family is grateful for the loving care that she received at Pinnacle Health and Rehab-Sanford and Compassus Hospice Services. In lieu of flowers, memorial donations may be made in her honor to Abby’s House in Worcester, Massachusetts.Read Less

John Quincy Adams – July 4, 1821

Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on Foreign Policy (July 4, 1821)
John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State

AND NOW, FRIENDS AND COUNTRYMEN, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and
Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of
nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force….

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….

America’s glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

Conscience Muscle

The following is copied from: https://www.fff.org/2026/08/20/conservatives-are-wrong-about-morality-responsibility-and-freedom/

Conservatives Are Wrong About Morality, Responsibility, and Freedom

by Jacob G. Hornberger

August 20, 2026

One of the fundamental differences between libertarians and conservatives pertains to the concepts of morality, responsibility, and freedom. Conservatives are wrong and libertarians are right on this issue.

Conservatives hold that before people can be permitted to be free, they have to be moral and responsible. Thus, the reason that many conservatives oppose freedom for the American people is because, conservatives say, the American people are not sufficiently moral and responsible. As soon as they become sufficiently moral and responsible, conservatives say, they will have earned the right to be free.

Thus, we need a drug war, conservatives say, because too many Americans consume illicit drugs. They even break criminal laws to do it. That shows that they are simply too immoral and irresponsible to live in a free society—that is, one that has no drug laws. As soon as Americans become moral and responsible by ceasing to consume illicit drugs, they’ll be permitted to live without drug laws.

Or consider the welfare state. Americans, conservatives tell us, are not sufficiently moral and responsible to decide for themselves whether to help out others who need help. We can’t, for example, repeal Social Security because children are not yet sufficiently moral or responsible to help out their parents or grandparents. They simply cannot be trusted to handle this on their own. That’s why we need Social Security, conservatives tell us. It’s also why conservatives tell us we need welfare programs for the poor. Since Americans are not sufficiently moral or responsible, we need a federal “safety net.”

There is, of course, one big problem with this conservative position: It lasts indefinitely. The lack of freedom becomes permanent. That’s because it is virtually impossible for people to become sufficiently moral or responsible when they are denied the freedom to choose. Without freedom of choice, people remain mired in immorality and irresponsibility.

Libertarianism holds that people have the right to be free regardless of whether they are sufficiently moral or responsible. Freedom is a natural, God-given right. It doesn’t depend on whether people are already moral or responsible. In other words, even if people are totally immoral and irresponsible, they nonetheless have the right to be free.

But here’s the catch: It is only through freedom that people can become moral or responsible. The conscience is like a muscle—it must be constantly exercised to be strengthened. When people are faced with such questions as “Should I help my ailing parents or grandparents in need?” or “Should I help that poor person in need?” or “Should I donate to my church?” they are necessarily exercising their conscience. That process is what elevates not only the sense of morality and responsibility within the individual but also society generally.

The best thing Americans could ever do is reject conservatism (as well as progressivism, which forces people to be good, caring, and compassionate). The best thing Americans could ever do is embrace libertarianism and the freedom, morality, and responsibility that come with it.

Robert Ringer on Fauci

Here is an essay on Dr. Fauci
It may have been written before the disclosure of Fauci’s diary.
Published August 3, 2026 at:
https://robertringer.com/evil-versus-arrogance/

“Evil” is one of those words people use freely but rarely define. It is usually reserved for murderers, dictators, and assorted sociopaths who make no effort to conceal their contempt for human life. But the more interesting question is whether evil must involve cruelty or whether it can arise from something far more commonplace, e.g., vanity, ambition, self-deception, or the hunger for power.

Which brings us to Anthony Fauci. The temptation is to choose between two simple portraits: Fauci the selfless public servant or Fauci the evil calculating villain. To Fauci’s admirers, he was the calm voice of science during an unprecedented crisis. To his critics, he became the symbol of an arrogant public-health establishment that demanded obedience, discouraged dissent, and arrogantly presented uncertain judgments as settled facts.

Before classifying anyone as evil, we have to distinguish between bad intent, bad judgment, and bad results. A person can make disastrous decisions without desiring disastrous consequences. We’ve all made such decisions, but incompetence is not evil. Nor is arrogance.

Even the desire for fame and power, unattractive though it may be, does not automatically make someone evil. On the other hand, intentionally harming others is evil. Evil begins when a person knowingly places his own interests above the lives, liberty, or well-being of others and continues to do so even after he is aware of the damage he is causing.

Much of the case against Anthony Fauci involves his handling of scientific uncertainty. Mask recommendations changed. Claims about vaccination and transmission proved to be wrong. Lockdowns and school closures imposed enormous economic, educational, psychological, and medical costs. Critics of prevailing policies were often treated not merely as mistaken but dangerous.

Fauci would argue that recommendations changed because the evidence changed and that officials had to make decisions under emergency conditions. That defense cannot be dismissed out of hand. COVID-19 was a new disease, information was incomplete, and officials faced the possibility of mass death.

Nevertheless, uncertainty is not a blank check for authority. When government officials are uncertain, their moral obligation is to clearly say so. The public can tolerate uncertainty. What it will not indefinitely tolerate, however, is being told that science requires obedience today, only to discover tomorrow that yesterday’s commandment was provisional, exaggerated, or politically motivated.

The questions surrounding research funded through EcoHealth Alliance are particularly troubling. A federal inspector general concluded that both EcoHealth and the National Institutes of Health failed in important monitoring and reporting responsibilities, creating “missed opportunities” to oversee research properly. Even so, that finding does not prove Fauci created the virus, caused the pandemic, or committed a crime, but it does demonstrate that the system he helped lead was not the flawless temple of scientific competence portrayed to the public.

A Republican-led congressional investigation later accused public-health leaders of serious failures and excessive secrecy. Testimony and records released by the committee raised legitimate questions about transparency, recordkeeping, the definition of gain-of-function research, and the treatment of the laboratory-origin hypothesis.

Fauci, for his part, has insisted that he kept an open mind about COVID’s origins and denied suppressing the laboratory-leak possibility. He also defended NIAID’s research investments as necessary preparation for emerging diseases.

So, was Fauci evil? The evidence available to the public does not justify declaring, as an established fact, that Fauci deliberately sought widespread suffering. Nor is there clear evidence that personal fortune was the central motive behind his pandemic decisions. Fame and power are more plausible explanations, because Fauci clearly became a celebrity and exercised extraordinary influence. But plausibility is not proof of what was in his mind.

The more defensible judgment is that Fauci displayed the classic dangers of institutional power: excessive certainty, resistance to outside criticism, concern for bureaucratic reputation, and an apparent belief that experts should manage what ordinary people are permitted to hear and decide. That attitude can produce evil consequences even when the official involved believes himself to be virtuous.

Indeed, some of history’s worst abuses were not committed by people who awakened each morning thinking, “How can I be evil today?” They were committed by people convinced that their intelligence, credentials, or noble objectives placed them beyond ordinary moral restraints.  No doubt even Stalin and Mao thought they were acting virtuous on behalf of their people.

The final verdict on Anthony Fauci may depend upon evidence not yet available and upon facts that may never be known. But perhaps the most important lesson has less to do with Fauci than with human nature. The lust for fame, fortune, and power is not the opposite of evil, but it is often the road leading to evil. And that road becomes especially dangerous when the traveler insists that he alone represents science, truth, and/or the public good.

Thus, for the sake of fairness, it is entirely possible that Anthony Fauci is not an evil man, but merely an annoying little scoundrel who finagled his way into a breathtaking position of power over millions of innocent people. Which begs the question: Should an annoying little scoundrel who destroyed the lives of millions of people be punished the same as an evil person? It’s an interesting question—perhaps even a moral question—because for someone who lost a loved one to COVID, does it really matter if the cause was evil intent or arrogance?