A Very Short War
Posted on October 8th, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
I agree with Jesse Walker that the success of non-interventionism inside the GOP remains a very long shot. It seems to me that Andrew has misread Drudge if he detects an undercurrent of antiwar sentiment there. Today’s Drudge headline highlights a Times story reporting declining morale among our soliders in Afghanistan, and the story emphasizes that the soldiers see the war as futile and lacking clear objectives, but there are plenty of ways for a reflexively pro-war audience to reconcile this with continued support for the war. Of course, the war in Iraq has been futile and lacking in clear objectives practically since the beginning, but that has not stopped two-thirds of Republicans and an even higher proportion of self-described conservatives from backing it to this day. Furthermore, as Walker notes, Republican leaders certainly aren’t moving in that direction.
Andrew’s original post referred to a “looming foreign policy war” on the right. That would be very welcome to the extent that it meant that conservatives were beginning to think twice about their foreign policy assumptions, but if it happened right now it would probably be short and not to the advantage of non-interventionists. After all, if there were a “foreign policy war” on the right, who would be on our side? Andrew invokes Hagel and Huntsman, which reminds us of how politically lopsided such a fight would be. I have said in the past that Huntsman might provide a sober, informed foreign policy perspective because of his diplomatic background and experience overseas, but Huntsman already scrapped any ambitions for higher office and party leadership when he accepted the post in Beijing. Hagel abandoned any thoughts of a presidential run and he is now persona non grata on much of the right…because he had the sense to oppose deepening our involvement in Iraq. For that matter, Hagel is a long way away from being a reliably good guide on foreign policy, as I have said many times, and my guess is that Huntsman would prove to be far more conventionally hawkish on policy once we learned more about his views. Ron Paul has done great work making the case against empire and war, and for his troubles he is reviled by much of the rest of his party.
What does seem clear to me is that most of the public will continue to reject conservatives and the GOP in part because of their disastrous foreign policy views. Until most conservatives and Republicans see that they are at odds with most of the public on these questions and recognize that they are in the wrong, it is hard to see how non-interventionism or even a humble “realism” will make much headway on the right.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
Daniel, I’m not so sure it would be such a short war. While we do not have the personnel at this point, as you point out, we have the brains. Reflexively bellicose “conservative” style interventionism is so obviously brain dead and counterproductive that over time this will have to dawn on people and they will begin to flake away. This is already happening. Look at the number of non-interventionists who show up in conservative venues these days compared to five years ago. The non-interventionists usually make rational and coherent arguments while all the interventionists can do is get shriller and shriller. While there remains a broad interventionist consensus, the loudest mouths are bitter enders who can sense that their grip is slipping away. Hence they up the rhetoric. This can only last so long. It is not making converts. It is only keeping the already converted in line.
I would welcome, if not a war, at least a discussion about the cost and wisdom of our foreign policy interventions;
And the notion that we have the brains is flattering, but probably pointless; for evidence, visit David Frum’s New Majority site and see the dust-up between him and Mark Levin. Specifically note the tenor and tone of Levin’s followers in the comments section.
Somewhere, Wm. F. Buckly is weeping
Red,
Its not enough for us outsiders to recognize that the GOP message of perpetual aggression and nation-building is neither prudent nor popular with the public. What must occur is for a plurality of insiders – activists, pundits, elites – to come to that recognition, something most are emphatically not willing or able to do.
That said, I think the anti-war position will be represented in the Republican primaries, although I worry about who is going to pick up the cause. It this situation, where there is no clear favorite for the nomination, the candidates are going to try to find ways to distinguish themselves from the herd. Some of these ways are going to be trivial and stupid. But some of them may be potentially interesting. The Ron Paul movement may have succeeded in raising our profile one tiny notch: Instead of being non-entities, we paleos might get some opportunistic pandering. Its a start, but a long way from a takeover.
One bright spot is that the massive deficits will, I hope, compel anyone who wants to speak the words “Fiscal Conservatism” without giggling to accept that some sacred cows will need to be cut, in order to balance the budget. And since military spending occupies such a huge portion of discretionary spending, there is no way to talk about spending cuts without cutting the military. And cutting their budget will then force a reevaluation of military scope and goals.
Maybe a backhanded way of getting to the point, but I would take it.