Posted on 12/21/2009 4:23:40 PM PST by rabscuttle385
For eight long years under George W. Bush, conservatives endorsed a don’t ask, don’t tell foreign policy–they did not really ask why their country was at war and Republican leaders did not tell, or bother, Americans with any of the gory details. Missions were accomplished, we fought them over there so we didn’t have to fight them here and troops were supported by simply supporting the wars they fought, with little to no dissent. But why were we fighting? What was “victory?” How many had to die? What was the cost? Conservatives did not ask-Republican politicians did not tell.
But some Republicans are finally asking. Regarding President Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, columnist Reihan Salam writes: “Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican known for his independent streak, has made a conservative case for withdrawal.” Says Chaffetz: “Our military is not a defensive force for rough neighborhoods around the world. They are trained to be an offensive, mission-driven military force to protect the United States of America. They are not trained to be nation builders or policemen… If our mission in Afghanistan is simply to protect the populace and build the nation, then I believe the time has come to bring our troops home.” Is Chaffetz’s position on Afghanistan a sign of things to come? Salam thinks so, writing: “my guess is that by the 2010 congressional elections, dozens of Republican candidates will be doing the same across the country.”
We can only hope. As a conservative, I have long found it perplexing that to a large extent the American Right has been defined by its enthusiasm for going to war virtually anywhere, for virtually any reason and often for no good reason.
The notion of defending one’s country is something patriots of all political stripes can subscribe to. But that every military action our government commits to should automatically be considered righteous and unassailable is a bizarre position for conservatives, given their natural distrust of government in every other sphere. The Wilsonian idea of “making the world safe for democracy” has never been the language of hard-headed conservative realists, but maniacal ideologues, and yet the liberal dispensation and celebration of such utopian rhetoric by the last Republican president, his party and most self-described conservatives, left the Right a confused mess.
That’s what makes sane conservatives like Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr. of Tennessee so refreshing. Says Duncan: “There is nothing conservative about the war in Afghanistan. The Center for Defense Information said a few months ago that we had spent over $400 billion on the war and war-related costs there. Now, the Pentagon says it will cost about $1 billion for each 1,000 additional troops we send to Afghanistan… Fiscal conservatives should be the ones most horrified by all this spending. Conservatives who oppose big government and huge deficit spending at home should not support it in foreign countries just because it is being done by our biggest bureaucracy, the Defense Department.”
Indeed. Democratic Congressman Barney Frank has said that there would be enough money for national healthcare if we hadn’t spent so much money on the Iraq war. When debating liberals like Frank, it would be nice if conservatives could point out that Americans shouldn’t be spending so much money, period–instead of just arguing in favor of a different government program.
As our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan inch closer toward the decade mark, it seems many Americans are beginning to realize that their own security, both personally and nationally, is more at risk from big government than protected by it. Support for Obama’s outrageously expensive agenda, his performance and his popularity continues to plummet and a recent Pew survey found that 49% of Americans believe the U.S. should start minding its own business globally. Says Duncan: “We have now spent $1.5 trillion that we did not have–that we had to borrow–in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eight years is long enough. In fact, it is too long. Let’s bring our troops home and start putting Americans first once again.”
If current trends are any indication, the basic conservative sentiment that government should mind its own business might be seeing new light, even concerning foreign policy. Writes Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo: “it is clear that a great many conservative Republicans are undergoing a transition: faced with the consequences of eight years of dangerous and debilitating militarism, some are beginning to question the basic premises of interventionism.”
It’s about time. And at this particular juncture, conservatives who still cannot muster any skepticism toward big government abroad-while hypocritically railing against it at home–should finally give up any pretense of being for limited government, concede Barney Frank’s argument, and quit calling themselves “conservative” altogether.
That wasn’t the contention of the original post, was it?
All told, the country has been overrun by the Persians, Alexander, Medes, the Achaemenid Empire (both Persian), the Mauryans and Greco-Bactrians, Huns, Arabs, and Mongols.
I may not own the copyright on the term, but I sure know what the word “conservative” means... and nation-building or foreign adventures are not included in the definition.
Hunter, Tancredo, Ron Paul, all talked about secure borders. The RNC and the Bushites ran screaming from the idea. And too many bush-bots here ALSO poo-poohed the notion of securing our borders.
The ONLY way to get the jihadi’s attention is to inform their sponsors, Saudi Arabia, et al, that the next terrorist attack anywhere in the world will result in the immediate complete and total destruction of Mecca. Then follow through. City by “holy” city. Put the onus on the sponsors to stop it or be vaporized. There is no other way I can think of that would have the ghost of a possibility of working.
The people in the mid east have the society and government THEY WANT. If they dislike it, it is THEIR job to do and THEIR blood to spill to get it done, NOT OURS. WE have shed way too much blood for too many “causes” and gotten nothing but shafted in return, by the very people we “saved.” NO MORE. Let these people shed their OWN blood instead of OURS.
With (no) respect to your claim that we get attacked whenever we don’t maintain an occupation force overseas, that just won’t wash. If you think it will, please provide cites and links.
If we pull our troops home, where they belong, while maintaining a forward naval presence together with the Maritime Pre-positioning Squadrons, we don’t NEED the occupation troops abroad AND we can project force where ever it might be needed. Then, if an army is needed they can deploy and have adequate stocks of equipment and munitions available til the resupply line is set up.
There is no excuse, whatsoever, for spilling OUR blood for others unwilling to spend their own. Never has been, for that matter. And on top of that, after we’ve spent our blood and our childrens’ blood, we are asked to also PAY THE BILLS. How many scores of billions did we pay to rebuild Iraq? When we were told that their oil monies would cover it? How many billions? No, that is NOT permissible under our Constitution and it does NOTHING to keep us one iota safer.
And what I learned in the Marine Corps was that I owe allegiance to the Constitution and the American People, that I need to respect and see the Constitution obeyed by government, that what is not specifically allowed for government to do, is PROHIBITED to it. What did YOU learn, presuming you served?
OK. Now, turning to more modern times, how often has Afghanistan been conquered and by whom? (Since the advent of firearms in the hands of the Afghans.) The Brits couldn’t; the Soviets couldn’t; WE aren’t gonna be able to do it, especially the way we’ve been going about things. So what to do? I say it’s long past time to get our folks out of the target zone and get ‘em home. (That, by the way, is ALSO the feeling of a lot of mid-level and senior staff NCOs that I’ve talked with who are just back from there. They are not allowed to win and so there’s no reason to paint one more bullseye on one more American troop for no good purpose.)
2 in Viet Nam with the 7.17th Air Cav, 3 in Germany on the border with the 2nd ACR and another 3 in Bragg with XVIII Abn Corp Arty Aviation Sec.
I too took the oath and adhere to it, but not by some kooks interpretation of the constitution. You all don't hold sole propriety on that either.
Like it or not, the founding fathers gave us a process to amend the constitution as felt needed. You don't like the amendments, work to repeal them.
Good luck getting more Muslims on our side by threatening them. In case you didn't pay attention, Jihadists kill them readily to and would gladly bring down a nuke on Mecca to get the rest of the Muslims on their side.
Or do you not also realize in every war we relied on spies from the inside? No, we do not have enough yet, but why should we when people like you are ready to nuke the innocents while the Jihadists will hide in caves in Afghanistan?
Wasn't it Hitler and his Nazi's who approached similar retribution against innocents if one of his was killed?
At well over one billion, you will have a difficult time wiping them all out. Or, didn't the Marines teach you to count?
Hate to break it to you, but do you think there would be an America if France, Spain and the Netherlands all agreed, “The people in the colonies have the society and government THEY WANT. If they dislike it, it is THEIR job to do and THEIR blood to spill to get it done, NOT OURS?”
Or, do you not realize we gained our freedoms with their help? We did not do it alone!
I learned plenty, I wonder if you actually did!!!
The major fallacy to your statement is assuming ae are trying to conquer Afghanistan, we are not there to conquer them.
Yes, many enlisted, NCO’s at all levels and even officers don’t want to be there, but they keep returning.
Guess what? We didn’t want to be in Viet Nam, Korea or even Europe of the Pacific Islands in WW2 either.
But, like during Viet Nam, when there are so many denigrating the mission, morale plummets as the Troops are left feeling as if no one supports them any longer.
The old “I support the Troops, but not the war” doesn’t cut it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/26/troops-hope-sacrifices-not-in-vain/
If you feel the need to rail against anything, rail against the ridiculous ROE’s that tie our Troops hands.
Maybe it's about time we realized we can't build up democracies in the ME...the best we can do over there, is contain the crazies (sadly)
...by demonstrating that if they %&$@()^ with the United States, we will not hesitate to destroy them, and I mean, throughly destroy them.
The politicians will NEVER name the enemy.
The last one who did? -Was Sir Winston Churchill.
“If we’d fought WW2 the way we’re fighting this “war on terror” (and I include Dubya as well as Obama) we’d still be working our way through Normandy and Guadalcanal.”
Ain’t that the truth.
Back then we accidentally and intentionally killed civilians on the enemy side, and it worked.
Today we are obsessed with the idea that to win, we can’t kill civilians on the enemy side, and it isn’t working.
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.