Replies

"Well written. I, too, am puzzled by Peggy's article."

I am not puzzled by Peggy's comments. I share her concerns. My concerns are NOT about the references to God in the speech. I don't think that is the basis of Noonan's concern either (but who can say what she is really thinking). My concern is that Bush's speech can be construed as committing the United States in general and our military in particular to establishing liberal democratic states around the world. This is Wilsonian not Reaganesque.

My own view is that the United States military should be used only for the defense of the nation. We should kill those who threaten us and leave everyone else essentially alone. Don't get me wrong. I would love to see all the nations of the world become liberal democratic states (in the good sense of those terms). This would no doubt make the world a more peaceful place. But I do not believe that this can be achieved with any reasonable amount of American resources or American blood. Commiting the United States to the goal of freeing the world is nothing more than Internationalism without the United Nations.

Call me a paleocon, or a nationalist, or a nativist, but my primary concern is for America and its citizens and not the poor and oppressed elsewhere. This is what troubles me about Bush's speech. In the aftermath of 9/11 the focus was protecting the nation by making war on those who publicly and privately have vowed to kill us. The focus now has shifted to improving the world. Bush tried to connect the two in his speech. But I am not convinced. This is the focus of my concern. And I believe it underscore's Noonan's misgivings as well.

"..My concern is that Bush's speech can be construed as committing the United States in general and our military in particular to establishing liberal democratic states around the world. This is Wilsonian not Reaganesque.."

A valid question. I wish that Peggy had instead visited that question you pose, rather than what she did. All conservatives must carefully weigh our methods. I appreciate your well-argued position, but I can't help but feel that we are now entering an age where we can no longer allow to flourish those rogue states which think to train and arm terrorists against us, and then stand back and deny any involvement. We must be careful and calibrated in what actions we take, as you point out, but we no longer can afford to allow Cambodian-style safe havens. IF...that policy, as I suspect you fear, morphs into a general push to interfere with the sovereign right of other nations, then I will be one of the first to enlist under your banner. Until then, unless I read it wrong, we still are following the only course that may yet avert planetary religious warfare.