Posted on 03/29/2003 2:00:54 PM PST by politique
It is appallingly practical for President Bush to claim that our efforts in Iraq are mere extensions of America’s altruistic hand. But the implications of that statement are not only suicidal to the movement of conservatism as perceived by the public, but also to the virtues that have guided it.
The present administration has continually asserted that America’s current mission is to bring liberty to the Iraqi people, as demonstrable in its christening of the war as “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” And, politically, that would be dandy. After all, it is the footage of oppressed Iraqis who dance and laugh as allied troops march through their hometowns, which brings tears of joy to the eyes of spectators. The rhetoric of “the axis of evil,” “weapons of mass destruction,” and “threat to national security” just don’t have the peal that is characteristic of jubilant Iraqi children. But as much as practicality is essential in formulating scenarios and making decisions, it cannot come at the cost of truth and consistency. It is just when such a compromise takes place—as in the morbid assimilation of America’s dual political system—that the disintegration of a movement is initiated.
The existing war was originally articulated to be one of self-defense. Arguments were expressed, citing Iraq’s historic disregard for international bodies, human life, and manners of civility. Terrorist attacks against the United States, sponsorship of fanatical organizations, and evidence of similar nature were employed to indict the regime that had gotten its way for 12 years. It was in protection of our rights that American troops were sent to battle.
The conservatives, however, have chosen to divorce from their original path—selling the war to maudlin emotionalists rather than thinking rationalists. Convenient as it may be in the short run, its more distant upshot won’t be so swell. By choosing the corridor of convenience, the conservative movement has provided ammunition for its own murderers.
The United States shouldn’t be the world police; it should mind its own business. That is what the conservative movement has preached for decades. It opposed our intervention in Rwanda, Kosovo, Serbia. It claimed that war should be an act of selfishness—to protect our turf from force or the threat of force. The troubling question is, “Should the overwhelmingly positive response to U.S. invasion in Iraq reverse, would President Bush withdraw our soldiers from that country?” Of course not: that was not America’s purpose. And as long as the U.S. government shuns the recognition of this simple truth—the unapologetic, proud, resolute espousal of our true purpose, the preservation of national security—it will face unanswerable charges of hypocrisy and insincerity in the future.
Which brings us to the bigger picture. Is the dubbing of our current war as “Operation Iraqi Freedom” practical at all? In other words, does practicality denote acting upon expediency in the short run or expediency in the long run? Nearsighted practicality is magnificent for rounding up political support, advertising causes, and things of the sort. Practicality on the larger level, nonetheless, is what defines movements and establishes legacies. Are conservatives acting upon the demands of the moment (boosting support for the war) or are they acting upon their more inclusive best-interest (setting a tradition of trust, consistency, and firmness)? Incidentally, in the long run, the former cannot possibly exist without the latter.
In this specific case they have resorted to the first—failing to consider the far-reaching implications of their pragmatist policies.
The unlearned political lesson of the past century seems to have been: practicality, the real practicality, is to act upon convenience only within the framework of a broader picture. It is only in such manner that a given political movement can bear legitimacy and effect change at the same time.
The conservative movement must reconsider its priorities. It must choose the road of principles and tenacity. That is its most practical option.
First of all Conservatism is not a movement; 2nd, the road a conservative American follows is one of principle and tenacity along with honor, commitment to the US Constitution. enormous integrity and the unshakable belief that “...all men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...”
President Bush extends those thoughts as is his nature and his right to do so. However, as we find ourselves faced with not just an enemy of his people and those in other nations, we find we are faced with an enemy so diabolically criminal in all aspects, we may have to hold onto our humanitarian efforts until Saddam can be killed or forced to abdicate his hold on Iraq. To give out more relief water and food is only aiding and abetting the enemy, as we don’t know who is needy and who is not. We can no longer afford to “help” the casual drivers when asked and we can no longer expect the enemy to treat our fallen brothers to anything but butchery if captured by the Iraqi. The War has a new face and it is not pretty.
Take off the gloves Gen. Franks, let your/our troops fight!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.