Posted on 09/12/2009 2:11:19 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
A year ago this week, I wrote the following concerning liberal Democrat Joe Lieberman being invited to speak at the 2008 Republican National Convention and conservative Republican Ron Paul being shut out: "If you are pro-gun control, pro-socialized healthcare, pro-choice, pro-amnesty, all of these liberal positions can be tolerated so long as you are pro-war. If you are a staunch conservative on virtually every issue, if you're not pro-war, you're no longer welcome in the Republican Party." The name of my piece was "The War Party" and that's exactly what the GOP was in September 2008.
What a difference a year makes. Lieberman has gone back to being the loyal Democrat for the most part, and the only war the Right seems excited about is their own against President Obama and his agenda. Well, at least most of it.
When columnist George Will called for the removal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan last week, he made his case using the type of hard-headed realism that used to define conservatism. "[N]ation-building would be impossible even if we knew how," Will writes. "If U.S. forces are there to prevent reestablishment of Al Qaeda bases — evidently there are none now — must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen, and other sovereignty vacuums?
"U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000," he adds. "Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable."
But what is inconceivable to Will is instead a moral imperative to many other right-wingers. Talk radio host Mark Levin blasted Will, stating his explicit support for nation-building in Afghanistan. Columnist Bill Kristol wrote, "Will is urging retreat, and accepting defeat." Also joining the anti-Will chorus were Rich Lowry, Fred Kagan, Peter Wehner, and other neoconservatives.
Somewhat perplexed by the backlash to Will's column, Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi noted, "Judging from their harsh reaction to Will, it's not clear when, if ever, some conservatives believe the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan." Harsanyi makes a good point. But an even better point might be this: what exactly makes the neoconservatives, conservative?
I'm often asked to define the term "neoconservative." While there are many definitions, neoconservatives are probably best described as single-issue voters whose single issue is war. No matter how much it costs, how little sense it makes, or which party wages it, neoconservatives will find any justification and invent any reason for maintaining or increasing American foreign intervention. That a neoconservative would ever suggest we should shrink our foreign commitments and bring our troops home is about as likely as Obama suggesting we should shrink government. And damn heretics like George Will, who point out the insurmountable obstacles that prevent us from winning the war in Afghanistan.
If a liberal can be defined as someone who refuses to reconcile his utopian vision with reality, then there has never been anything particularly conservative about the neoconservatives. The idea that the U.S. could somehow transform the Middle East if only we invested enough dollars and effort is a fairy tale the neoconservative Bush administration not only sold the American people, but Republican unity and identity depended on the willingness of conservatives to believe this fantasy. Writes Cato Institute Vice President Gene Healy, "The Right's embrace of nation-building during the Bush years was perplexing. When the government announces a massive effort at social transformation, you expect conservatives to be the leading skeptics." But far from skeptical, those screaming the loudest for their president to use government to provide "hope" and bring "change" were not Democrats. And during those years, the GOP fully became the War Party, due entirely to the dominance and influence of the neoconservatives.
Will ends his column with the following: "Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, 'when' means 'now.'" For the neoconservatives, "when" is never.
As Obama's popularity wanes and support for his war plummets, now is the time to make the case that American soldiers shouldn't be the world's policeman, liberal utopianism is not sound foreign policy, and nation-building is not conservative. George Will has and serious conservatives should follow suit.
Alright, who turned on the lights?
Agree with the context of this article.
Joe Liberman, who may be one of the bigger liberals out there, is more welcomed in the movement then Ron Paul
Its sickening
Yep.
Joe Liberman good.
Ron Paul bad.
Politically speaking, in order to make it possible for the US to withdraw from Afghanistan all Obama has to do is kill Bin Laden. If he tries to withdraw before OBL is dead then the Democrat party will get clobbered in the next elections.
>>> Alright, who turned on the lights? <<<
Watch those Paleocon cockroaches scatter!
Seriously, though. This essay is long on glib anti-”neoconservative” criticisms and short on suggestions as to what might be a better way of fighting resurgent Islam militancy at home and abroad. Not to mention assist US allies like Israel.
I think it’s pretty smart that the GOP has been and continues to be a “War Party” since there does appear to be a war going on against the US. This is one of the few things that the GOP has gotten right the past 8 years. Apparently, the author has conveniently forgotten what happened on 11 September 2001. Why would that be?
As for George Will — is there some sort of alliance being formed between the Rockefeller Republicans and the Paleocons? Or do Paleocons just like to support a fellow poltroon when they see one?
While I agree with the foregoing, If not us, who?
If there is no policing of the miscreants of the world, what happens in that vacuum?
As conservatives, is it morally acceptable to advocate for a strong defense and not intervention?
Finally, given a defensive as opposed to actively preemptive posture, what should our response be to the inevitable attacks on our interests?
Bush was at his best, a moderate.
Total BS.
Joe Lieberman was on display for political purposes, demonstrating how Democrats are soft on terror.
Ron Paul, who is against the war, should have been on display at the Dem Convention.
There are two main directives in war. Conquest and homeland. This war has always been about homeland(despite the ridiculous cries of “war for oil”). As long as this diversion lasts all is well.
At core, I think George Will would sometime, as he has, bail out of the wars is because...........it’s outdoors. Dusty, dirty.
He’s a priss, a la de da, a fop.
You want the right word from a dictionary, ask Will. But not pulling a track in a mud field in Germany in November, or eating dust day after day on road patrols in some muslim country.
They’re snobs who look down on Working Americans.
We should absolutely carpet bomb and destroy all life in the radical villages of Pakistan. That will cripple osama’s terror organization. Then put about 250,000 more troops into Afghanistan and destroy it from within. Did I mention that while all this is going on Iran’s nuke facilities should be annhilated along with every ship, plane, truck and every one of their oil wells.
Then tell the other members of the axis of evil to shut up or face even more dire consequences. Also, back home, we need to end the dominance of radical professors in colleges where they intimidate and brainwash.
Yeah, it worked so well in 2006 and 2008.
My answer is nobody. The world will degenerate into major local conflicts. EU vs Russia vs China vs India and etc. IMHO the worst the better, and we should be selling guns to all sides. That is how we rose to power in the late 1800’s. Wait till all major powers are exhausted from all the fighting, we jump in well rested and fresh. That is what we did in WW I and sort of in WW II.
If George Will is abandoning the “War Party” by supporting a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, then he must be abandoning the Democratic Party. The Afghan War is their baby. On the other hand, I don’t think Will was ever much of a Democrat anyway, so I’m not sure “abandon” is the correct verb.
George Will is a butt brother to Josef Stalin.
But that's not what we mean by "war" anymore, is it? Particularly not when the C-in-c is a Democrat Benandjerry-licking Marxist.
I am probably in a tiny minority here, but I think we ought to cut our losses and exit Afghanistan as soon as possible with the least damage to our interests. Otherwise it's going to be worse, maybe unimaginably worse, than LBJ's results in Viet Nam. Can we get rid of 0bama instead? No. We're got 0bama stuck on our feet, so let's not do Afghanistan with him. Like the song says, you can't roller skate in a buffalo herd.
A couple of problems with your answer:
In the 1800’s there were no nuclear weapons nor was there the means to rapidly project force to any point of the globe.
Secondly, our supply ships “selling guns to all sides” were prime targets. Attacks on which inevitably drew us into said conflicts.
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.