Wars that Conservatives Don’t Like
Interesting reflection on why conservatives are turning on Bush’s Iraq and how it’s playing out in the Republican presidential primary.
Andrew Sullivan: The 20 percent or so of Americans who still think we’re winning in Iraq happen to be the Republican base. And so the GOP in Congress has to pick between surviving their own primaries, maintaining civility with their own faithful, and potentially getting wiped out in the next election. The game of chicken is getting very intense. I guess we’ll know how strong the kool-aid is by September.
The paradox, of course, is that a major source of disaffection with the war is from the right. Conservatives don’t like half-assed wars - and this one has been under-planned, under-manned and chaotically strategized. Conservatives don’t like losing wars; and this president has been overseeing meltdown in Iraq and war without end. Conservatives tend to think armies should be about fighting and winning conflicts; but Bush has forced the US military to be nation-builders, religious peace-makers, torturers, and civil war policemen. Conservatives believe wars should be in the national interest; and let’s just say that grinding your military into the dust for the sake of “democracy” in a place where few even understand it and those who do have left is arguably not in the national interest.
And yet no major Republican candidate can yet express the sentiment articulated by William F. Buckley last week. McCain seems to be grappling toward such a posture. But the GOP would be well served by an actual debate on the war, how it’s metastasized beyond the original purpose, how it’s become a way to increase rather than reduce the terror threat, and how to win it or cut our losses. I see no way this necessary debate will happen unless an anti-war Republican runs for president. Senator Hagel, your time may be now.
Lefthook,
Thanks for posting a moderate, well thought out article.
Well done, The Dag!
You’re welcome. I’m new to Andrew Sullivan. He was too much of an Iraq War cheerleader for my taste, but he has since repented and apologized.
MD
I thought you read liberals only?
See brainwashing by the liberal terrorist supporting media is working.
MD arent you just the least suspicious that when the dems need a terrorist attack they get them?
re:
“And yet no major Republican candidate can yet express the sentiment articulated by William F. Buckley last week.”
Well Duh. And Ron Paul has been consistantly opposed to the war. However there’s a media blackout against him. And this columnist is apparently afraid to mention his name too. Is he part of the status quo also? Why not mention his name along with a little side note: “but he doesn’t have a chance”?
I want to know what the party of no conscious will do about the Kurds? Will they turn their backs the same way they did post Viet Nam. What is 2 million to a party that praises the murder of a million a year via unnecessary abortions. Tell me you back turners what will you do sell the AQ the chemical agents to mass murder the Kurds in one fell swoop or will you allow AQ to torture them the way Saddam your hero did?
Bill,
It is curious that they don’t ever mention Ron Paul. Even Kucinich gets some attention allbeit because of his articles of impeachment. Maybe Ron Paul should get on board with Kucinich.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hLVhgm_glc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fimpeachforpeace%2Eorg%2Fimpeach%5Fbush%5Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D606
John,
I’ve even been known to read Mark Twain silently without moving my lips.
But, I still lose my place if I don’t follow along with my finger.
MD
Mike,
You don’t have enough guts to come right out and say it do you?
You want to accuse me and all Liberals of being terrorists but you’re too cowardly to back that up.
You’re gutless and you’re a liar.
Like Erick Erickson and all the limp lipped liars of the non-mainstream Repuglicans.
Mad Dog
Caroline
Personally I think Ron Paul has a chance or else I would be supporting some other Republican underdog, or maybe even a Democrat! (But nobody that I see now in the limelight)
Reads like charged language propoganda.
Excellent post, Mad Dog!
===========================
“. . .grinding your military into the dust for the sake of ‘democracy’ . . .”
–Is that the latest excuse for invading, destroying and occupying Iraq? What happened to 9-11, al-Qaeda, WMDs and that nasty old Saddam?
“But the GOP would be well served by an actual debate on the war, how it’s metastasized beyond the original purpose . . .”
–Remind me what the original purpose was supposed to be? Reelecting Dubious?
“. . .it’s become a way to increase rather than reduce the terror threat . . .”
–Ah, yes, now I remember.
—————————-
Mike,
“I want to know what the party of no conscious will do about the Kurds?”
–Curious question. We’ve already seen the GOPers back up Saddam when he was gassing them in the 1980s; in this decade, the mantra is to invade, destroy and occupy the entire nation. Does the fact that the stupidity is now spread throughout the country suggest that the GOPers are favoring the Kurds, by not focusing on them as they did ca. 1980s?
“Will they turn their backs the same way they did post Viet Nam.”
–Good question: Why didn’t President Ford do more?
.
james-mtm
Do you not think some conservatives are against what is going on in Iraq?
Isn’t the Kurdish region the area with the least violence now? And actually there is some question as to who gassed the Kurds. Whatever the case the massacre doesn’t necessarily point to a mass effort on anyone’s part.
Bill,
The northern Kurdish area achieved semi-automony prior to the failed occupation of Baghdad.
The Clinton regime supported the Kurds in various ways including enforcement of the no fly zones.
There are varying accounts of anti-Kurdish themes in the U.S. backed Saddam years.
Most of the worst allegations covered the Iraq/Iran war. Some Kurds favored Iran over Iraq. Some Kurdish cities and areas were ‘taken’ by Iran.
It remains in dispute whether Iraq or Iran both gassed these disputed Kurdish areas.
MD
Thanks.
YOu bet