PATRIOTIC CONSERVATIVES DURING “SHOCK AND AWE”

How does a patriotic conservative behave when he believes his country has made a mistake by entering a war? “Politics ends at the water’s edge,” has been the conventional wisdom since the 1940’s. The statement was made by Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a Midwestern isolationist who signed on to FDR’s political adventurism and the postwar crusade against the Soviet Union. Vandenberg’s about-face is usually attributed to patriotism or Realpolitik. The reality turns out to be less noble: British intelligence agents set up the senator, who had a roving eye, with an attractive woman and then blackmailed him into submission, an operation described and documented in Thomas Mahl’s Desperate Deception.

The corollary to Vandenberg’s dictum is that as loyal citizens we must support the troops or even that we must obey the Commander-in-Chief. The President, however, is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, not of the citizens of the United States. To suggest otherwise is to treat our country as a military dictatorship. As for supporting the troops, it depends on what we mean by troops and what we mean by support. Of course, no decent American would do anything to give aid and comfort to an enemy or to undermine the morale of American soldiers. One complicating factor, however, is that we no longer have a citizen army drafted from the people, but a volunteer army whose members have enlisted for a variety of reasons: good pay, education, career advancement. No one made them enlist, and the possibility of facing combat is one of the reasons they are paid so well. I think it is more accurate to say that we support them not as citizen-soldiers (which, for the most part, they are not) but as our fellow citizens who have elected to become soldiers. In the same spirit, we support the police and firemen or American diplomats who are attacked or kidnapped by the enemies of our country.

But it is one thing to support the troops, and another to give a blank check to a particular administration. What is the difference, morally speaking, between the statement “I support the troops, no matter what the cause and no matter how the war is conducted” and “I was only following orders”? Morally responsible people cannot suspend their consciences in time of war, and, if the United States decided to use poison gas or nuclear weapons against the people of Iraq, moral people would be obliged to speak out; and if there are moral Americans who agree with the Pope in believing that the United States is not justified in its war against Iraq, then they have the right and obligation to speak their minds--within the limits of civility and loyalty.

This brings me to the difficult position in which I find myself. I do not believe that the government of the United States has just cause to invade Iraq, and I believe strongly, for reasons that I and other Chronicles editors have previously stated in print, that the long-term result of this war will be an increase of Islamic terrorism against the United States, the solidification of Arabic hatred of our ally Israel, and the formation of anti-American alliances among France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, China, and who knows how many other important states. In the months leading up to the war, upon which George Bush resolved absolutely at least a year ago, which his advisors urged upon him shortly after the election, and which the neoconservatives claim to have decided upon before the end of 1997, we have spoken out forcefully against what we believed then and still believe to be a wrongheaded policy. Now that the war has come, and some of our predictions are already coming true (though the American media is not, for the most part, covering the violent demonstrations taking place in the Islamic world, especially in Cairo), I am not prepared to retract my statements or, insofar as the future is concerned, to fall silent on the difficult issues that our nation faces. Silence, under such circumstances, would be quite properly interpreted as a display of cowardice and opportunism worthy of Arthur Vandenberg.

On the other hand, as I have also made clear in recent months, I do not intend to join Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon and other self-promoting celebrities in their “peace” riots, or join forces with disgraceful and America-hating leftists like Ramsey Clark, or denounce the President with the usual stock comparisons to Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam Hussein. I do not condemn the decision made by some antiwar libertarians to take part in the antiwar movement. I believe they are mistaken, but, having made such mistakes in the past, I am in no position to point an accusing finger.

I firmly believe that the President is mistaken, misled by advisors who are either reckless adventurers or pursuing a political agenda that is not in the American interest. He is, on balance, a man of healthy instincts and, at this point, remains a better alternative than any candidate announced by the Democratic Party. Rhetorical attacks on George W. Bush, his administration, and his party will only serve to deepen and widen the breaches in American political life. This is a time for constructive dialogue among Americans of good will, not for reciprocal excommunications.

The best thing that could happen, both for the people of Iraq and for the Americans sent to fight this war, would be a speedy American victory, followed by a serious reconsideration of U.S. strategy. A long-term occupation, such as the neoconservatives envision, would only aggravate the serious problems we have already created. With these two objectives in mind, we shall continue to discuss and deplore the policies advocated by Donald Rumsfeld and his sinister advisors, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, and we shall continue to advocate an international strategy that acknowledges the independence of sovereign nations and the need for cooperation with the nations of Europe, including Russia.

We reserve our contempt for the little buglers and drummer boys, unleashing the dogs of war from the safety of their weblogs and chatrooms, but we offer our prayers for the American troops and for the people of Iraq. To the Bush administration, we shall continue to give the friendly advice and constructive (sometimes severe) criticism that is owed by loyal citizens to the government of the country they love.

"We reserve our contempt for the little buglers and drummer boys, unleashing the dogs of war from the safety of their weblogs and chatrooms, but we offer our prayers for the American troops and for the people of Iraq."

Some snippets from AMERICA'S FLAILING FRANCOPHOBES
by Thomas Fleming

"I succeeded in staying out of the military during the Vietnam War, and I would never assume the right to tell others to do a “duty” that I shirked."

Naw, but you'll assume to tell those who've never enjoyed your freedom to spout pointless crap that they should just take their rapes, tortures, and murders like good little foreigners.
Just have to post another line from that one, even though it's not on point:

"I love my country, knowing all the limitations and frailties of the American people, and I respect and admire the French, who have been a far greater nation than we shall ever be, that is, if greatness means anything loftier than money and bombs."

...they are paid so well.

What has dude been smoking?

Consider what a young airman writes to Cindy Williams:

I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GIs earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest leave and earnings statement (LES), I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through Windows' Calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after.

I work in the Air Force Network Control Center (AFNCC), where I am part of the team responsible for the administration of a 5,000-host computer network.

I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for Network Technicians in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience with my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year, nor does it pay less than this. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum. I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.

Also, you tout increases to Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (housing and food allowances, respectively) as being a further boon to an already overcompensated force. Again, I'm curious as to where this money has gone, as BAH and BAS were both slashed 15% in the Hill AFB area effective in January 00.

Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you have NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces. Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off AFDC, WIC, and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN, I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make, though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience."

As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone -- obviously they've been squandering the vast piles of cash the DOD has been giving them.

Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites.

And when you're actually over there, sitting in a DFP (Defensive Fire Position, the modern-day foxhole), shivering against the cold desert night; and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.

Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't nearly be long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your op-ed piece.

But, tomorrow from KABUL, I will defend to the death your right to say it. You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment rights and every other right you cherish. On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective nose at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe.

We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies. And you, Ms Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?

Rubbish!

A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC"

Listen, it isn't as if Buchanan were ousted from respectable conservative circles by a bunch of sneaky neocons overnight. Rather, they gave him chance after chance, and he kept saying he was misinterpreted and then biting at the anti-Semitic bait again. Case in point: much has been said about his column on the "amen corner" for Israel. In my view, while calling Israel's American supporters this might not show much class, it clearly is not anti-Semitic. But the rest of the article is!!! He states that men with names like Murphy, blah blah blah, and Leroy Brown will die in Iraq, and he carefully picks ethnically associated names. He just as carefully leaves any Jewish names out of the list. This was not only anti-Semitic, but cowardly. Nevertheless, conservatives generally let it go. Then, a few years later, he stated that we'd have been better off not getting into WWII. Some of them still let it go. Then, right after 9/11, he wrote that if we hadn't supported Israel, this wouldn't have happened. The man only gets so many chances.

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.