Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
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.
Absolutely, which makes the hatred of him by the Left even more puzzling. And George Will has been calling himself a "conservative" when he is, at best, center right or a "Beltway conservative".
Lol. At best Bush was a LBJ Democrat, and I’m being polite.
If a Dem had tried the crap he pulled off, the R’s would have tried to impeach him.
Amnesty
Tens of Billions Aids to Africa
hundreds of millions to the PA
Open Borders
Tens of Billions to Katrina
No Child Left Behind
Zero down for mortgages
Corporate Bailouts
Car Bailouts
Medicare
etc.
Problem is when you get involve, you better have a draft military of conscripts and a treasury overflowing with cash. We have neither. Conventional military threat is the least of our problems. Nobody is going to line their men and tanks up for our airforce to kill (lesson our enemies drew from Gulf War I). Most countries cannot stand up to US military in the open. Rather they will adopt assymetric warfare involving insurgencies and terrorism. If you insist that we still plunge into world affairs, then the US needs to close off its borders and stop immigrating people from hostile nations and races. Tough to be safe if we plan to block Chinese efforts to power and turn around and allow millions of Chinese to immigrate into US and hold high tech jobs. Can you say espionage??? Tough to defend Isreal and piss off the Arab world and yet allow millions of Muslims to come to the US to study and hold high tech jobs/live amongst us. Can you say domestic terrorist attack???!!!! Within one week after 9/11 video images of the WTC were pulled because our government and corporations were afraid of stirring American nationalism (upsets globals plans), the very thing we needed to pursue a long war in Iraq. Without hatred for terrorist and Islam, our support for our war in Iraq dropped below 50 percent within two years of fighting with less then 3000 KIA with talk radio to counter MSM (atleast in Vietnam America could tolerate ten years and 58000 KIA before public support went south with no talk radio to counter MSM). Essentially what I am saying is if we plan to get involve in the world we better secure our home base, safeguard our technology and competitive edge, close our borders, be selective on immigration, have a treasury full of money and a large military (draft army) to meet such obligations. Our country is not there yet, because liberals and conservatives would oppose many of the preconditions I listed. Read how nations prepare to be dominant power in the world (Germany, Japan, Soviets, etc, etc). It involves mobilizing public opinion, censoring of the press and cultural media, whipping up nationalism, prepare one youth generation K thru 12 for military service, and have a nation ready for long drawn out conflicts and sacrifice. Since we are not ready to do what is necessary, then I rather not waste the blood of our young soldiers and hardpressed taxpayers on your vision of pax americana that can easily be underminded by political opposition and MSM. American empire is not a digital age mult task project where you can go to war like ordering a computer component instantly from a subcontractor, it is still an industrial age process which involves time, material and men that must be prepared, mobilized and stockpiled for action. That is a harsh lesson Rumsfeld and his neocons learned at the cost of the GWB popularity.
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?
I personally think you make some very good points, and I agree with you.
However, we currently have some real and very serious problems with a loss of good jobs and an economy that has many middle class people in danger of losing their homes and much of what they own and not being able to afford any kind of decent life ever again in this country.
Also, it appears that a majority of the American voters have elected a communist / socialist / fascist president and party into political power, with all the future ills that will entail coming down the road.
While there are plenty of us did have anything to do with putting the current president and his party in power, the fact is that there are a lot of people out there who did vote for them.
Plus state, county and city governments that are responding to their own budget shortfalls due to loss of tax revenues by tasking the police to shake down citizens with enforcement of whatever laws they can tag people with to get revenue in the way of fines and assessments.
Plus the tendency of those in power to view and treat the citizens who are starting to demand accountability and voice their opinions (as well as recently returning military personnel who bravely served in combat zones) as terrorists.
...And I'd have to say that we have plenty of our own problems here...
Yes, it's going to hurt to see the rest of the world go to heck if we pull back, but we are unfortunate fast coming to the point where we are going to have to take care of our own problems first.
Will has the distinct superior quality of being able to veneer asinine observations and analyses with a ersatz intellectualism. Will turns up his nose and sniffs at a world in which he has physically little participated in. To be sure, he is eminently qualified as a baseball observer.
...While there are plenty of us who did not have anything to do with putting the current president and his party in power, the fact is that there are a lot of people out there who did vote for them...
We would all like to remove ourselves from the problems of the world, however the world is now so interconnected that such a course is literally suicidal.
It remains perpetually better to fight and reduce them THERE.
Would that George Will get his pampered and pompous (and protected by our men and women in the armed forces) ass out into the field and see some reality. He is a gas bag.
Sure enough, there are plenty of possibilities to worry about, and in a more perfect world we would be able to stay on top of things.
However, I believe that if present political, population and economic trends in our country continue, we are going to come to the point where we run out of the will or the money to be able to do what we should be doing in the world.
Then it will turn into a real mess, for sure...
IDK about that. There is little interest in the war these days, and OBL is old news. As long as he lays low out there, the pipple will not care about Aghanistan, Pakistan, or wherever else the roaches lurk.
After all, 9/11 is merely a "day of service" now that we are "moving on."
Which is why Osama bin Laden will never die, never be captured, never be neutralized -- both Parties need bin Laden to be exactly where he is, taunting us every few years, and rubbing our nose in 9/11 in order to keep this war going forever.
I was all for going into Afghanistan with a blitz to teach them a lesson post 9/11 -- not nation building, no apologies -- just a strategic surround them and destroy, in & out. We had every right to do that.
But no one seems to notice that Afghanistan has lasted twice as long as WWII for us.
When is enough, enough? When folks begin to realize that we are getting manipulated into bankrupting ourselves, both morally and financially, with wars that profit no one other than the elite with a financial stake in them!
I think the problem is that we are not fighting to win, but to simply keep the terrorists from being able to regroup and attack our homeland again.
If we were truly serious, we would be killing terrorists whenever and wherever they are, regardless.
Not withholding attacks because there might be civilian casualities.
i don't recall that Will was getting involved in field operations. Don't get me wrong Leisler, i'll defer to your experience on these matters, even though i have a little of my own experience, but Will wasn't addressing any such thing.
You don't ask a soldier about foreign policy and diplomacy. The soldier's job is to deal with the failure of diplomacy, and the mistakes that our politicians made in foreign policy.
i'll ask my 21 year old son about how to handle a certain patrol route (he goes back for his second Afghanistan tour in March, C/2/506), but i'm not going to ask him about how to do nation building...his job is nation breaking.
“As conservatives, is it morally acceptable to advocate for a strong defense and not intervention?”
Absolutely YES!
“Finally, given a defensive as opposed to actively preemptive posture, what should our response be to the inevitable attacks on our interests?”
DECLARE WAR, do whatever it takes to WIN (and THAT right quickly!!!), AND COME HOME AGAIN!
“If there is no policing of the miscreants of the world, what happens in that vacuum?”
Let PRIVATE parties hire out to those who need such help and they can do the job. It is our GOVERNMENT that must be restrained. (Just as we had the AVG, American Volunteer Group, which helped China prior to our entry into WWII. Yes, it was partly a fiction, but mostly it was volunteers going off to war, just as with our pilots going to Canada to fly and fight.)
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Standard neocon tripe. Ron Paul has been telling us about a "better way" for years, yet he is shunned by both the MSM & the GOP. The "better way" is to FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION: Limit the powers of the federal government only to those that are "few & defined" & re-focus its priorities like a laser beam to "war, peace, negociation, & foreign commerce" (both quotes are from James Madison in Paper #45 of The Federalist Papers). The fedgov has too many iron in the fire already, now here is Obama trying to add even more responsibilities (all of which are unconstitutional) to the fedgov? IMO, this is absolutely treasonous.
I never liked George WIll. Hate all the patricians — they are what keep good people from joining our cause.
He just has to stay in Afghanistan and wait for the next big "movie moment" of the Islamics. Wait for the next mandate.
The toughest part will be if the Islamics don't make a dramatic move, but just wear away at NATO in Afghanistan.
I have to concur with you on this. Will does occasionally stumble upon an accurate analysis, but for the most part, the guy is an elitist. Always has been.
Good points from Smedley Butler. I’d add that US military actions abroad met with hostile reactions, excusing even more US “interventions”.
Iraq and Afghanistan are more than just the latest interventions, though. 9/11 hit home. We kept poking abraod and got a reaction that even the average American citizen noticed, but just barely.
The flaccid response of the US bears comparison with WWII. How would the “greatest generation” have responded to 9/11? I think Bin Laden would have been long dead.
Empires degenerate, and the failure to get Bin Laden may be a sign that our days are numbered.
Bump for later napalm
Will, the original meterosexual..ciao.
Is this parody ?
That’s for sure—and a mess in which the enemies of America, freedom, and, yes, civilization, triumph.
>>> The “better way” is to FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION: Limit the powers of the federal government only to those that are “few & defined” & re-focus its priorities like a laser beam to “war, peace, negociation, & foreign commerce” (both quotes are from James Madison in Paper #45 of The Federalist Papers). <<<
And, pray tell, how is our pursuing a war against militant Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan — a war against the US that began decades ago and culminated in the 9/11 attack on the WTC and the Pentagon — NOT following the US Constitution? Does Rep. Paul have a copy of the Constitution that’s missing Article I, Section VIII?
I never said if it was or wasn’t, did I? I was making a general statement that our government needs to regain its respect for the Constitution & quit stretching its words into something that was never intended by the Founding Fathers.
But beins you asked, the war in Afghanistan was / is Constitutional ‘cuz an official Declaration of War was made by Congress, & rightly so; but Iraq was not.
>>> But beins you asked, the war in Afghanistan was / is Constitutional ‘cuz an official Declaration of War was made by Congress, & rightly so; but Iraq was not. <<<
So Congress’ Iraq War Resolution (Public Law 107-243) from October 2002 doesn’t count?
“The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
Let me know how you, Rep. Paul and the ladies at Code Pink fare if you ever decide to challenge the constitutionality of Iraq War II in court. Again.
And which part of that resolution allows for nation building that would destroy our economy and last at least a decade? Seems to me that the neos took a mandate for national defense and (as usual) applied it for national offense.
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.