Russell Kirk vs Libertarianism

Russell Kirk, the arch-enemy of libertarianism, says:

Yet into precisely this same pit Mill falls in his Liberty. In his introductory chapter, he declares his object to be the assertion of “one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used by physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
(…)
"To me the question whether liberty is a good or a bad thing," Stephen wrote, "appears as irrational as the question whether fire is a good or a bad thing? It is both good and bad according to time, place, and circumstance, and a complete answer to the question, In what cases is liberty good and in what is it bad? would involve not merely a universal history of mankind, but a complete solution of the problems which such a history would offer. I do not believe that the state of our knowledge is such as to enable us to enunciate any very simple principle as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control.' We must proceed in a far more cautious way, and confine ourselves to such remarks as experience suggests about the advantages and disadvantages of compulsion and liberty respectively in particular cases." In every principle premise of his argument, Stephen declared, Mill suffered from an inadequate understanding of human nature and history. All the great movements of humankind, Stephen said, have been achieved by force, not by free discussion; and if we leave force out of our calculations, very soon we will be subject to the intolerant wills of men who know no scruples about employing force against us. (So, one may remark, the twentiethcentury libertarians would have us stand defenseless before the Soviet Russians.) It is consummate folly to tolerate every variety of opinion, on every topic, out of devotion to an abstract "liberty"; for opinion soon finds its expression in action, and the fanatics whom we tolerated will not tolerate us when they have power.

To me, these paragraphs seem to be the height of folly. First, Kirk says that John Stuart Mill (during his "libertarian", not socialist, phase) stated that force is justified when used in self-defense. Kirk claims this principle is a chimera. Several paragraphs below he says that the libertarian principle would not allow the US to use force in self-defense against the Soviets. Isn't there a contradiction here?
I haven't seen such a striking example of confused, sloppy and vague thinking for a long time. He "proves" that force can be salutary and liberty can be harmful by confusing several meanings of these terms. If by force he means force used in self-defense, the libertarian principle is not opposed to this kind of force, and his critique of libertarianism is therefore a farce. If he means any force, whether aggression or self-defense, then he does not offer any proofs that aggression can be salutary.