The definition of defense

I actually found both Professor Barnett’s and Mr. Richman’s articles to be well considered and contain thought-provoking perspectives. 
 
Maybe we could learn more about the proper libertarian stance on the Middle East if we focus on the root causes of the conflict. Yes, there are attacks on both sides (with different resources available to each). We have espionage, embargo, terrorism, blowback, invasion, and insurgency. All true. 
 
But what is the root of this conflict? It’s obviously oil. We’re not talking about North Korean weapons of mass destruction, invasions, or insurgents. My question, also as a long-time Libertarian, is: “Whose oil?” Americans desperately need the oil. Our entire economy currently runs on it, from fuel to transportation to materials. It is in our vital national interest. But whose property is it? 
 
If it’s not under American soil, we can trade for it or take it. If people that own oil we need in those other countries won’t trade enough with us, we also have the option of invading those countries and establishing governments we think might be more amenable to trade. 
 
Which of these solutions sounds more Libertarian? 
 
If Libertarians hold that governments are instituted among men to defend life, liberty, and property, then we should probably define whose lives, whose liberties, and whose property. Americans have staggering resources as a group, but not enough oil. Do we trade for it, or take it? 
 
Certainly there will be human rights violations in the countries where the coveted resources exit. There will be despotic leaders claiming to have weapons of mass destruction. We may even believe them from time to time. The world will undoubtedly be filled with all manner of injustice for the foreseeable future. Some of that injustice will undoubtedly occur on land we might have uses for.  
 
Perhaps some will feel it isn’t about oil. It’s about the downtrodden people under these despotic regimes. Maybe Americans can extend the scope of our government to defend those people too. People who don’t and can’t help pay for it, but still need the protection we’ve defined as essential. 
Where does the jurisdiction of our national defense end? Beyond the cost and feasibility of having the U.S. military define and enforce American ideals globally, a matter for any Libertarian to confront is whether we should do such a thing. What would be our response to another strong nation attempting to militarily define how American government should interact with Americans? 
 
If we don’t get involved militarily, is that Isolationism? Or is it Non-Interventionism? Look up the terms yourself. Will trading with the rest of the world help us? Will it help them? 
 
Can we be non-interventionist and still go after any attackers with frightening resolve and persistence? Can we make it much more painful to attack the U.S. than to trade with us? 
 
I guess it depends on your definition defense.

Guest