Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: WAR IS NOT CONSERVATIVE
Source:
The Internet
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 31, 2011
Author: n/a
Post Date: 2011-12-31 11:04:28 by We The People
Keywords: None
Views: 11965
Comments: 34
War not conservative (Rep. John J. Duncan) By Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-Tenn.) - 11/18/09 12:04 PM ET 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. One Republican Member from California told me recently that we could buy off every warlord in Afghanistan for $1 billion. 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. 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.
Poster Comment: Hopefully the chickenhawks of this country will look at this.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
#1. To: All (#0)
War Is Not Conservative; You Need Head Examined Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - 21:47 Yet when you watch the recent Republican Presidential debates, nearly all of the candidates on the stage tout this dangerous rhetoric over and over. In the most recent debate last night, I listened to 6 out of the 8 candidates on stage (minus Ron Paul and John Huntsman) say that the United States needs to “further involvement” within the internal affairs of numerous Middle Eastern countries. Rick Perry said we should declare a no-fly zone over Syria. Herman Cain and Rick Santorum both implied outright that we should initiate an attack on Iran. Newt Gingrich said we should covertly overthrow the regimes of both of these countries. For Michele Bachman, nothing is off the table, especially military action. And Mitt Romney sounds like he would like to do all of the above. These candidates also have indicated that we need to stay almost endlessly in Afghanistan and Iraq to “see the mission accomplished”. What mission? And almost all of them again unilaterally endorse “crippling” economic sanctions on these same foreign nations, which of course, is another way of saying blockade—or an act of war. Our country is currently involved in many overseas conflicts, and it has been for some time. But most disturbing is that ever since this pattern began, whereby our country goes to war when it feels like it—unconstitutionally, without a proper Declaration from the Congress (as mandated by Article I Section 8)—our nation’s government has practically been engaged in one long continual state of war for over 60 years! And this is seen today as nothing unusual! Only a sugar-coated understanding of American history provides this wide-spread acceptance by the public that all of these endless wars are “good” and “just”. Much of this propaganda has been rooted in fear and emotion, and certainly not logic. These past wars have been sold to the public with warnings about the need to stop the world's next Hitler. The sales pitch runs something like this, “Well, there’s a boogey man out there, and you have to give us the power to stop him. Don’t believe us? Well, just take my word for it.” The latest boogey man has become the “Islamic Fascist”, the “Terrorist”, or the Iranian “Radical”. And thus, a major question exists—when did the conservative position become the endorsement of war and fear mongering? If you look back in history, taking the nation to war actually used to be the radical, liberal position! Although the ideas of foreign intervention and Empire had already begun to foment, Woodrow Wilson became the champion of the tag line, “Make the World Safe for Democracy”. Wilson was one of the more significant leaders of the “Progressive Era”—a radical shift in American history that helped place the final nails in the coffin of the American Republic. Wilson’s foreign policy ideas of more intervention coincided directly with massive domestic intervention into the market economy. Woodrow Wilson presided over the establishment of the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve Banking System, centralizing power in Washington—permitting bureaucratic authorities to directly confiscate personal income, and giving the power to the federal government to debase, and counterfeit our currency. Wilson also championed the change in how US Senators were chosen, shifting the process from one of appointment by the various state legislatures, to a direct popular vote from the public at large—ending one of the last true checks the individual state governments had over federal power and mob rule. Simultaneously, the Wilson Administration played national nanny, banning alcohol across the entire nation after it was deemed by bureaucrats as “immoral for the public” (giving rise to the organized cartels of the Prohibition Age). It’s safe to say, these ideas are not “conservative”. This domestic intervention, and the erosion of private property rights, gave Wilson and others like him only increased and ever-heightened power. The Wilson Administration went on to ignore the advice of our country’s Founders—who eerily warned of the entangling political alliances of Europe—and by 1917, the United States fell into the blood-soaked trenches of Europe. Over the course of just one year, 100,000 Americans had lost their lives during World War I. And for what? If we look back on the prevailing thoughts of this day in age, the conservative opinion was to stay out of the war. Show restraint, show wisdom. After all, war is bad for the economy. Only peace, trade, and commerce brings prosperity. War can only bring the destruction of lives and resources. What’s more is that the entrance of the United States onto the battlefields of Europe ended the teetering back-and-forth stalemate, and provided a one-way victory for the British Empire: Winner take-all, and Loser pay-all. It’s important to note that in this day-of-age, it was never a foregone conclusion that the United States would ever “side” with the British—or the French, in any war. In fact, many Americans had just as much in common with the Germans. By the end of the 19th century, a huge influx of immigrants from Germany and Eastern Europe had poured into the United States. And up until this time, the United States was still very wary about the British Empire—just as Germany was (after all, we had already fought two wars against it). It is very likely, that in the absence of American intervention, the European powers would have had to deal with a cease-fire and the end of hostilities in their own way. Resources and lives had depleted on both sides so severely, that neither was in a position to dictate any terms of surrender, and certainly not unconditionally. But this was not to be. The “Woodrow Wilson-plunge” pushed one side clearly over the top—but needless to say; all of the European powers lay in utter bankruptcy after the war. Out of hatred and frustration, the Allies forced inconceivable war reparations onto the Germans—who were perhaps the most bankrupt of all. The war reparations—payments to the Allies for being the losers—were conceptually impossible for the Germans to actually pay from the get-go. In fact, a mere 5 years after these impossible payments were forced upon Germany—by none other than the full weight and force of American intervention—hyperinflation began to run its course through the German economy, as the German government had tried turning to the printing-press to finance its deficits. The German paper currency became utterly worthless. Piles of German Marks lined the streets and sidewalks of Berlin—simply discarded as worthless trash. Complex exchange came to a grinding halt. The German people were forced into localized barter to survive. Inflation had completely destroyed what was left of German commerce and trade—and in from the chaos and the starvation rolled the beginnings of the Third Reich. Blaming the Jews, and the Bankers for all of their miseries—Power had increased in Germany, it had not diminished. In other words, another boogey man was found. But oh, how history has been perverted! You won’t find this interpretation of events in a school book today—and most college professors probably still lecture that World War I was America’s first step towards glory and taking our rightful place in the world, or something along those lines (though the real result was sacrificing our sovereignty at the altar of the soon-to-be United Nations). And those who dissent from these flawed policies of today are quickly scorned as “unpatriotic”—or perhaps a naive “isolationist”. But what truly isolates our country is the continual military intervention throughout the globe. Trade and commerce never isolates—sticking our nose in someone else’s business does. And our financial well-being depends on how quickly we can re-learn this lesson. It is certainly true today that one's comprehension of our country’s history will likely determine one's present view on foreign affairs. So look at the results of nations from the past that started down the path we have already long followed—these consequences are not pretty. We cannot have a sane fiscal policy discussion without realizing that our foreign policy is unsustainable—and that the unintended blowback from our continual meddling in foreign affairs has manifested a strong resentment towards the American policy of intervention and dictation, one that is still being played out. We can still choose a different ending—but it will take a shift in attitude and popular culture, along with a firm grasp of economics—to voluntarily correct our road towards peace, and prosperity. As James Madison wrote, “The loss of liberty at home will always be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.”
It is certainly true today that one's comprehension of our country’s history will likely determine one's present view on foreign affairs War Mongering has become THE most popular and well used conservative tradition in this country's history.
War Mongering has become THE most popular and well used conservative tradition in this country's history. Do you see the irony in the quote you posted followed by your statement? 1. War is not conservative. 2. War cannot be a conservative tradition. 3. Those pushing war today ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE. “The people we call neo-cons are not really conservative, are they? Hawkish progressives is more like it.”
1. War is not conservative. 2. War cannot be a conservative tradition. 3. Those pushing war today ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE. “The people we call neo-cons are not really conservative, are they? Hawkish progressives is more like it.” You appear to have made up your own definition of conservative. You want to break with a fine old US tradition of waging war around the world. That makes you a progressive or a liberal.
You are either being a. sarcastic and helping me to prove my point, or b. you're being ridiculous. If a is correct, thanks, but I don't need this kind of help. If b is correct, then please stop wasting my time.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/duncan1.html Conservatives Against a War with Iraq Most people do not realize how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq. James Webb, a hero in Vietnam and President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, wrote: "The issue before us is not whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years." It is a traditional conservative position to believe it is unfair to U.S. taxpayers and our military to put almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on the U.S., yet that is exactly what will happen in a war against Iraq. His troops surrendered then to camera crews or even in one case to an empty tank. Hussein has been weakened further by years of bombing and economic sanctions and embargos. The columnist William Raspberry, again not a conservative but one who sometimes takes conservative positions, wrote this week these words: "Why so fast. Because Hussein will stall the same way he's been stalling for a dozen years. A dozen years, by the way, during which he has attacked no one, gassed no one, launched terror attacks on no one. Tell me its because of American pressure that he has stayed his hand, and I say great. Isn't that better than a U.S.-launched war guaranteed to engender massive slaughter and spread terrorism?"
http://lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy26.html Antiwar Conservatism Neoconservatives and more overt Leftists alike want us to believe that war or preparation for war are the essence of conservatism, or are at least among its essential pillars. National Review, the Heritage Foundation, and the Republican Party — all of which purport to speak for conservatives — all champion "a strong national defense" and higher military spending, usually in times of peace as well as war. Democrats, academic leftists, and the liberal media also portray right-wingers as committed militarists. It's part of the left's myth of right-wing fascism. The real left and the phony right both agree that to be conservative means favoring military interests. The magazines and think tanks of both sides promote the idea. No wonder then that so many people, especially conservatives, believe it. But they're wrong. War and the military are antithetical to conservatism. The military and its business do not protect the institutions and values that conservatives esteem, they undermine them. This is true despite the best intentions of the men and women in the armed forces. No matter how conservative they may be personally, the nature of the military as an institution is radical. It is a leveler. The literature of antiwar conservatism is abundant but requires research to uncover. Thankfully much of the research has already been done by scholars at the Ludwig von Mises Instiute and writers at Antiwar.com and Lewrockwell.com. Of particular note as an introduction to the topic are The Costs of War, a collection of essays edited by the Mises Institute's John Denson, and also Joseph Stromberg's Antiwar.com profiles of leading antiwar conservatives such as Richard Weaver, the "Old Right," and Robert Taft. But for a one-stop summary of the conservative case against war and militarism the best source to turn to is Robert Nisbet. Nisbet, who died in 1996, stands beside Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver in the pantheon of post-war conservative intellectuals. His importance would be difficult to overstate. Kirk, "the dean of American conservatism," held Nisbet in the highest regard. By profession Nisbet was a sociologist, a rare rightist in a field dominated by Marxists and other left-wingers. He has recently been the subject of a brief, but excellent, intellectual biography — Robert Nisbet: Communitarian Traditionalist, by Brad Lowell Stone. "Budget-expanding enthusiasts for giant increases in military expenditures" are not conservatives in Nisbet's view. In his 1986 monograph Conservatism: Dream and Reality he writes of them: "Of all the misascriptions of the word 'conservative' during the last four years, the most amusing, in an historical light, is surely the application of 'conservative' to the last-named. For in America throughout the twentieth century, and including four substantial wars abroad, conservatives had been steadfastly the voices of non-inflationary military budgets, and of an emphasis on trade in the world instead of American nationalism. In the two World Wars, in Korea, and in Viet Nam, the leaders of American entry into war were such renowned liberal-progressives as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. In all four episodes conservatives, both in the national government and in the rank and file, were largely hostile to intervention; were isolationists indeed." Nisbet discusses "the lure of military society" and its dangers at length in 1975's The Twilight of Authority. It is a work of considerable prescience. Nisbet writes: "If terror, as manifested by such groups as the PLO and the IRA, increases by the same rate during the next decade as it has during the past decade, it is impossible to conceive of liberal, representative democracy continuing, with its crippling processes of due process and its historic endowments of immunity before, or protection by, the legal process." Nisbet also understands that the popular reaction against a "bad war" like Vietnam was an historical aberration and that "the proper image of war, of military, and of war society should be...an American war of independence from England, a Civil War, a Spanish-American war (one of America's all-time great national thrills!), a world war for democracy, or a world war against Fascism. Or, for present purposes, the war of a courageous, beleaguered, American-supported Israel." Most wars are "good wars" in which we are convinced of the righteousness of our cause, be it democracy or anti-fascism or freedom. Wars are fought over values that cannot normally be questioned. To oppose the war becomes to oppose the sacred cause. But Nisbet shows that the only causes war ever really advances are those of statism and social decay. First, war is not only the health of the state but also its very origin. "The state is born of war and its unique demands. Those social evolutionists who have tried to derive the political state as a development from kinship — that is, as an emergent of household, kindred, or clan — have simply not recognized the issues involved. The first political figure in history is not the patriarch but the military leader." Furthermore "the kinship group and the militia were thus set into complete and unremitting opposition so far as their aims and needs were concerned." War is unavoidably statist and anti-family. War also brings what Nisbet calls "licensed immorality" of two kinds. It authorizes violence that would in any other circumstance be considered psychopathic and, in today's world, provides a vicarious thrill to those who watch the violence on the news. War licenses sexual immorality too, as shown by the Roman experience. "It was not easy for the young Romans, after a number of years in the field where every form of violation of the canons of continence was scarcely more than routine, to return to the iron morality of the traditional Roman family system, with its built-in coercions, constraints, and subjections to patriarch and matriarch." What was true for the Romans remains true today: "I do not think it extreme to link the breakdown in moral standards in all spheres — economic, educational, and political — as well as in family life — the effects of two major wars — celebrated wars! — in this century. What is in the first instance licensed, as it were, by war stays on to develop into forms which have their own momentum." In fact war is revolutionary. "Many of the basic values of war and revolution are identical. In each there is legitimization of violence in the name of some moral or social end that transcends violence. The appeal in each is overwhelmingly to youth — its unique energies, strengths, and also values, the latter so often subordinated in peacetime to the values of the older and established members of the social order. In both war and revolution there is an emphasis upon loyalty, honor, and cause that is all too often difficult to find in ordinary political and economic society." War, like revolution, simplifies and distorts morality, leading to zealotry. "One of the great appeals of war in the modern world especially has been its capacity to effect moral crusades on the grand scale, with the enemy seen, or made to appear, as the embodiment of evil and the challenger of all that is good. It was the French Revolution that first moralized military operations in a large sense." Moreover, modern, ideological warfare resembles revolution in its moralistic contempt for bourgeois lifestyles. "To both mentalities this society, especially in its modern capitalist form, can seem egoistic, venal, needlessly competitive, often corrupt, and fettered by privilege unearned. Careful reading of the memoirs of the great generals in history will, I am sure, real as much distaste for all this as one finds in the memoirs of revolutionists." Nisbet does not consider it coincidental that revolutionists like Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro adopt military fatigues as their habiliments. Nor that the People's Liberation Army should be the dominant institution of revolutionized China. He also reminds his readers that Max Weber found the origins of communism in the communal life of the military. Certainly the idea of a totally commanded and controlled life — totalitarianism — resembles military discipline. This discipline, regimentation really, stands in contrast to the self-control and continence that Western civilization and its conservatives have traditionally cherished. Intellectual life is likewise shackled by war. Nisbet cites the example of Woodrow Wilson's "Four Minute-Men" whose "canned speeches, filled with references to traitors and enemies of the sacred war effort, to cowards, draft-dodgers, and wearers of the white feather, as well as to those making the supreme sacrifice, could be counted upon, as time passed, to generate a whole spectrum of home front atrocities that ranged from the excision in public libraries of stories and songs composed by Germans all the way to the public pillorying of those with German names or family ties to Germany." Today it's Muslims rather than Germans, and instead of "Four-Minute Men" we have William Bennet's "Americans for Victory over Terrorism." American ideologies on both the left and the right are deformed by war and mobilization for war. Again World War I is the paradigm: "A great deal of the spirit of localism, of grass roots, and of pluralism that had characterized so much of American reform thought, ranging from anarchist utopianism to the special forms of socialism that characterized, for example, Eugene Debs and the editors of The Masses, disappeared with the war. A very different spirit, rooted in the centralized power of the national government and which in a sense took war-society minus war as its ideal of planned economy, replaced the older one." Roughly the same thing happened on the right in World War II, where unique, American-particular forms of conservatism, almost all decentralist and anti-statist, were replaced with an ideology fit for a garrison state. Just ask William F. Buckley. Nisbet concludes The Twlight of Authority's chapter on military society by summarizing the effects of war on culture and providing an insight into war's appeal to misguided conservatives. Here Nisbet leaves no room for doubt about what the conservative's proper attitude toward war must be. "War and the military are, without question, among the very worst of the earth's afflictions, responsible for the majority of the torments, oppressions, tyrannies, and suffocations of thought the West has for long been exposed to. In military or war society anything resembling true freedom of thought, true individual initiative in the intellectual and cultural and economic areas, is made impossible — not only cut off when they threaten to appear but, worse, extinguished more or less at root. Between military and civil values there is, and always has been, relentless opposition. Nothing has proved more destructive of kinship, religion, and local patriotisms than has war and the accompanying military mind. Basic social institutions can, on the incontestable record, survive depression, plague, famine, and catastrophe. They have countless times in history. What these and related institutions cannot survive is the transfer of their inherent functions and authorities to a body such as the military.... "Yet, evil as war and the military are as the pillars of society, there are, in ages of twilight such as our own, worse afflictions, at least in the imaginations of those who feel threatened by breakdown, corruption, moral erosion, and downright physical danger. War society — with its promised protection from these, its proffer of security to civil populations, its guise of revolutionary achievement, as in China, Russia, Cuba and many another nation, its repudiation of all the economic and social values which have become repugnant to people under depression or inflation, its manifest means of relieving the terrible weight of boredom that modern democratic and industrial populations increasingly find themselves enduring, and, perhaps foremost, its sense of mission or crusade — can be, indeed already shows vivid signs of being, almost redemptive in appearance." These have been just a few excerpts from one chapter of The Twlight of Authority, which is only a small part of Nisbet's entire corpus — which in turn is only tip of the iceberg of antiwar conservative literature. All of Nisbet's arguments are further elaborated upon in his other works and in the works of other antiwar conservatives. Theirs is a long and distinguished tradition, one almost totally unknown to today's shallow right.
Just a point of view: the approach in these articles seem to miss the central issue of why America is inextricably and seemingly at endless war, particularly since the end of WW2. It is my opinion that in the second half of the 1940s (and thereafter) that certain legislative acts were passed that ensure America's defensive military stance around the world and as a result of CIA overt AND covert meddling into sovereign foreign affairs that the same meddling further ameliorates the need for global military intervention. In effect, America's national policy of continuous war is NOT based upon a ping-pong game of left vs. right or any other terms you may choose. It is a fundamental LAW of the LAND. How do we extricate ourselves from this vicious, regenerative cycle of needless war is the root question that all should be addressing. In my way of thinking, render the 1949 National Security Act (Truman) null and void; this would disband the CIA and dispense USA meddling around the world with the exception of formal embassies and statesmanship.
That is what I'm attempting to address with these posts. Many so-called conservatives today believe that the pro-war stance is conservative. I'm trying to show them it is not. The power in this nation is still with the people, if only because we outnumber those in government. Change the peoples minds and you change the nation.
Many so-called conservatives today believe that the pro-war stance is conservative. I'm trying to show them it is not. The power in this nation is still with the people, if only because we outnumber those in government. Change the peoples minds and you change the nation. Why don't you admit you really want to stake out your own definition of "conservatism" and be able to change it with your moods.
LOL! Why don't you admit that if you weren't so obtuse, you'd see that I've given you my definition of conservatism from the very first post in this thread and each post I've made thereafter. You're demanding something that is right in front of you. Now stop trolling and emoting. I don't care about the feelings of perpetual victims.
Why don't you admit that if you weren't so obtuse, you'd see that I've given you my definition of conservatism from the very first post in this thread and each post I've made thereafter. You're demanding something that is right in front of you. Now stop trolling and emoting. I don't care about the feelings of perpetual victims. Why don't you admit you want an amorphous definition of conservative that fits whatever mood you are in today, instead of tap dancing around the issue.
How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution. There's nothing wrong with being a Conservative and coming up with a Conservative belief in foreign policy where we have a strong national defense and we don't go to war so carelessly.
He talks about creating new traditions yet calls it conservative. Just what is it conserving? The good parts! Whatever that means. Words do have meanings or maybe Ron Paul is becoming senile.
#26. To: mininggold (#25)
LMAO!! You concede that the definition you demanded was right in front of you the entire time? Now you move on to another irrational and logically irrelevant point. You're really not very good at this internet debate thingy, are you.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: We The People (#1)
#7. To: mininggold (#4)
It is certainly true today that one's comprehension of our country’s history will likely determine one's present view on foreign affairs
#9. To: We The People (#7)
Do you see the irony in the quote you posted followed by your statement?
#11. To: mininggold (#9)
You appear to have made up your own definition of conservative. You want to break with a fine old US tradition of waging war around the world. That makes you a progressive or a liberal.
#12. To: All (#11)
March 6, 2003
A strong majority of nationally-syndicated conservative columnists have come out against this war. Just three of many examples I could give include the following:
Charley Reese, a staunch conservative, who was selected a couple of years ago as the favorite columnist of C-Span viewers, wrote that a U.S. attack on Iraq: "is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American empire. Overextension – urged on by a bunch of rabid intellectuals who wouldn't know one end of a gun from another – has doomed many an empire. Just let the United States try to occupy the Middle East, which will be the practical result of a war against Iraq, and Americans will be bled dry by the costs in both blood and treasure."
Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the highest-ranking Treasury Department officials under President Reagan and now a nationally-syndicated conservative columnist, wrote: "an invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history."
It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge deficit spending.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a very short war followed by a five-year occupation of Iraq would cost the U.S. $272 billion, this on top of an estimated $350 billion deficit for the coming fiscal year.
It is a traditional conservative position to be against the U.S. being the policeman of the world. That is exactly what we will be doing if we go to war in Iraq.
It is a traditional conservative position to be against world government, because conservatives believe that government is less wasteful and arrogant when it is small and closer to the people.
It is a traditional conservative position to be critical of, skeptical about, even opposed to the very wasteful, corrupt United Nations, yet the primary justification for this war, what we hear over and over again, is that Iraq has violated 16 U.N. resolutions.
Well, other nations have violated U.N. resolutions, yet we have not threatened war against them.
In fact, it is already happening, because even if Hussein backs down now it will cost us billions of dollars in war preparations and moving so many of our troops, planes, ships, and equipment to the Middle East.
It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge foreign aid, which has been almost a complete failure for many years now.
Talk about huge foreign aid – Turkey is demanding $26 to $32 billion according to most reports. Israel wants $12 to $15 billion additional aid. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia want additional aid in unspecified amounts.
Almost every country that is supporting the U.S. in this war effort wants something in return. The cost of all these requests have not been added in to most of the war cost calculations.
All this to fight a bad man who has a total military budget of about $1.4 billion, less than 3/10 of one percent of ours.
The White House said Hussein has less than 40% of the weaponry and manpower that he had at the time of the first Gulf War. One analyst estimated only about 20%.
He is an evil man, but he is no threat to us, and if this war comes about, it will probably be one of the shortest and certainly one of the most lopsided wars in history.
Our own CIA put out a report just a few days before our War Resolution vote saying that Hussein was so weak economically and militarily he was really not capable of attacking anyone unless forced into it. He really controls very little outside the city of Baghdad.
The Washington Post, two days ago, had a column by Al Kamen which said: "The war in Iraq, likely in the next few weeks, is not expected to last long, given the overwhelming U.S. firepower to be arrayed against the Iraqis. But the trickier job may be in the aftermath, when Washington plans to install an administrator, or viceroy, who would direct postwar reconstruction of the place."
Fortune magazine said: "Iraq – We win. What then?" "A military victory could turn into a strategic defeat. . . . A prolonged, expensive, American-led occupation . . . could turn U.S. troops into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists. . . . All of that could have immediate and negative consequences for the global economy."
Not only have most conservative columnists come out strongly against this war, but also at least four conservative magazines and two conservative think tanks.
One conservative Republican member of the other Body (Sen. Hagel) said last week that the "rush to war in Iraq could backfire" and asked: "We are wrecking coalitions, relationships and alliances so we can get a two-week start on going to war alone?"
The Atlantic Monthly magazine said we would spend so much money in Iraq we might as well make it the 51st state. I believe most conservatives would rather that money be spent here instead of 7,000 miles away.
It is a traditional conservative position to be in favor of a strong national defense, not one that turns our soldiers into international social workers, and to believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy rather than in globalism or internationalism.
We should be friends with all nations, but we will weaken our own nation, maybe irreversibly unless we follow the more humble foreign policy the President advocated in his campaign.
Finally, it is very much against every conservative tradition to support preemptive war.
Another member of the other Body, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, not a conservative but certainly one with great knowledge of and respect for history and tradition said recently:
"This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of the revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption – the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future – is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense."
Throughout these remarks, I have said not one word critical of the President or any of his advisors or anyone on the other side of this issue.
I especially have not and will not criticize the fine men and women in our Nation's armed forces. They are simply following orders and attempting to serve this country in an honorable way.
Conservatives are generally not the types who participate in street demonstrations, especially ones led by people who say mean-spirited things about our President. But I do sincerely believe the true conservative position, the traditional conservative position is against this war.
#14. To: All (#12)
#16. To: We The People (#14)
#18. To: buckeroo (#16)
How do we extricate ourselves from this vicious, regenerative cycle of needless war is the root question that all should be addressing.
#20. To: We The People (#18)
(Edited)
That is what I'm attempting to address with these posts.
#21. To: mininggold (#20)
Why don't you admit you really want to stake out your own definition of "conservatism" and be able to change it with your moods.
#22. To: We The People (#21)
LOL!
#23. To: mininggold (#22)
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
What is not conservative about saying, 'Don't go to war unless we go to war properly with a full declaration of war and no other way?'
Ron Paul
To me, to be a conservative means to conserve the good parts of America and to conserve our Constitution.
Ron Paul
#25. To: We The People (#23)
How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution. Ron Paul
Replies to Comment # 25. He talks about creating new traditions yet calls it conservative.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]