PATRIOTIC CONSERVATIVES DURING “SHOCK AND AWE”

Chronicles Magazine ^ | 3/25/2003 | Thomas Fleming

[JohnGalt]

PATRIOTIC CONSERVATIVES DURING “SHOCK AND AWE” by Thomas Fleming

March 25, 2003

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.

[Wavyhill]

How is it anti-Frankish to oppose specific actions by the French government and approved of by the French people? As for anti-Semitism, it isn't just the fact that they hate Jews that bothers me. I, unlike leftists, am willing to let people think what they want. What bugs me is that they want the rest of us to bend our foreign policy to suit their prejudices.

[JohnGalt]

By pulling out the anti-Semite branding iron and accusing people of 'hating Jews' you end the debate right there.

How is it anti-Semitism to oppose the specific actions by the Neoconservatives/Canadian Conservatives and approved by the Bush Administration?