Any conservative worth the
label should be against intervention in another nation’s troubles.
Today’s sham version of
conservatism seems to include only Bible thumpers yearning to bring democracy
and Christ to the savages at the point of an armed drone and the near-anarchist
libertarian wing nuts.
Meanwhile, traditional
American liberalism has been overrun by the pinko-commie progressives – AKA the
DDGs [delusional do-gooders] – who must forswear all combat when they undergo
the lobotomy required for ordination in the hydra-cult of progressivism.
Completing the political soup
in which the nation currently simmers is the least capable President in a
lifetime and a nearly lone advocate for Syrian intervention [John McCain] who
has almost no remaining credibility whatsoever.
If you are trying to ignore
the Iranian bomb and Assad’s Syria, good for you but I think these two
situations are as critical to the nation as any of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan 1,
Iraq 1, Bosnia, Iraq 2, or Afghanistan 2.
There are barely two American choices in those examples that don’t seem
to be folly today. Perhaps the easiest
path regarding Syria now is resigned apathy but if you have an interest, I
offer two excellent opinion columns.
Can
Iran be stopped?
Economist,
Jun 22nd 2013
After
150 Years, the Choices Made At Gettysburg Still Reverberate
By
George F. Will, Washington Post, June
30
George Will, true
conservative, is against foreign engagements and says so often. He also points out that we are powerless to
prevent an Iranian bomb – the Economist agrees – and that the evils of
involvement in Syria cannot possibly be offset by any plausible reason for such
– the Economist disagrees. Still I
cannot help wondering whether this Will column about Gettysburg argues, by
inference, for Syrian intervention.
“Studying history serves democracy by highlighting
contingencies: Things did not need to turn out the way they did; choices matter.”
The only thing I can be sure
of in the moment is that politicizing foreign policy is as detrimental to the
nation as it can get.
Intervention in Korea created
yet another shining example of capitalism over communism but should we have
stopped before winning? On the other
hand, is America better off with the Korean
situation today than we are with the current capitalists in Vietnam? What did helping Afghanistan against the
Russians get us? Perhaps the collapse of
the Soviets? Booting the Taliban from
power was necessary and painless but everything after that in Afghanistan 2 is
a waste. Iraq 2 is obviously a disaster –
that nation hates us, is an economic and political mess and is now allied with
Iran. Of course we finally finished Iraq 1; we're out the
no-fly zone business there and Saddam is no longer paying Palestinians to
blowup Israeli children.
Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and
Syria are at war and they intend to win.
American is as unserious about that as we could ever be. Handing a military victory to Iran, Hezbollah,
Putin and Assad cannot be a good thing for America or peace or democracy. But is a better outcome from our involvement plausible? Such decisions should be made by experts
without input from the partisans, crazies and populists. The sausage-making should be conducted behind
closed doors with the conclusion explained to the nation afterward and without
dissent – think of how the Fed works.
If the conclusion is to make
war, then the Congress should declare it and support it. Bombing, drone attacks, arming rebels and
serious sanctions, let alone invasions, are all acts of war. The government should follow the Constitution
and put war making Presidents back in their box. And when we declare war, we should fight to
win and leave the political bickering for other topics until it’s over. We need the boys and girls in the
Congressional kindergarten to grow up.
If only there were some competence in the White House to lead us.
No comments:
Post a Comment