At The National Review Online's The Corner,
Jonah Goldberg claims that:
... the conservative position on war is different than the liberal position on war and its alleged equivalents. ... Speaking generally, the conservative attitude toward war is that, though regrettable, it is a legitimate function of the state and that victory is a legitimate and desirable outcome for both the government and the nation.
That might be what Conservatives say their position is, but it sure isn't what they practice. What have Conservatives done -- not just said, but actually done -- that demonstrates they desire victory? The post 9-11 war has been nothing but appeasement and evasion of responsibility by the Republican administration:
- Doing nothing while Iranian IEDs slaughter and maim Americans by the thousands.
- Doing nothing while Iran proceeds with its nuclear program.
- Doing nothing while Syria built a nuclear reactor.
- Getting bamboozled by N. Korea again and again with promises to disarm.
- Evading fighting the countries that actually pose a significant, imminent threat – namely Iran – while invading a secondary threat, Iraq, to create the illusion (and self-delusion) that they are actually fighting a war on terror.
And previous Republican administrations have been just as bad: for the past three decades, what has the US response been to the acts of war by Iran and its surrogates (including the bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the embassy in Beirut, the embassy annex in Beirut, the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania … the list goes on and on)? The response has been: nothing.
The problem is not just Republican administrations or the Republican Party, it’s the entire Conservative movement. Conservatives had a field day with Jimmy Carter’s disgraceful gesture of laying a wreath at Yassir Arafat’s Grave – but barely raised their voices when the Bush administration committed the infinitely more reprehensible act of giving that murderer hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and a boatload of weapons. Conservatives blame the rise of Islamic-Fascist terrorism on the Clinton failure to respond to terrorist acts, but remain silent on the failure of Reagan and Bush I to respond to far deadlier acts (noted above).
If Conservatives really desired victory, they would be screaming bloody murder at Bush’s continual failures. Instead, they remain silent.
It is pure fantasy for Conservatives to claim, as Goldberg does, that their position is any different from the Liberals', i.e. that they value America and its ideals and that they want to win the war. To value something means that you actively pursue it, not just that you say that you value it. Liberals want America to lose … and Conservatives aren’t willing to win – which is effectively the same thing, the same inaction in the face of continued attacks and unchecked growth of the Iranian threat.
The Conservative position on the war isn’t surprising. Conservatives are able to plagiarize the language of founding fathers and Ayn Rand, but they don't have a clue as to what liberty and the founding principles are:
War is one of the few great exceptions to the rule of liberty, a fact recognized by tradition, custom, law and the constitution. The infringements on freedom made necessary by war are, according to basic conservative precepts, regrettable and ideally temporary.
First of all, if Goldberg had any understanding or appreciation of what liberty is, he wouldn’t be mentioning it in the same sentence as custom and tradition. More importantly, waging a war in self-defense against a dictatorship like Iran does not constitute an infringement of anyone’s freedom. The guilt for the death of any Iranians killed in a US attack would fall on the Iranian regime, not us.
