Return of the Antiwar Right
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
For eight long years under George W. Bush, conservatives endorsed a don’t ask, don’t tell foreign policy–they did not really ask why their country was at war and Republican leaders did not tell, or bother, Americans with any of the gory details. Missions were accomplished, we fought them over there so we didn’t have to fight them here and troops were supported by simply supporting the wars they fought, with little to no dissent. But why were we fighting? What was “victory?” How many had to die? What was the cost? Conservatives did not ask-Republican politicians did not tell.
But some Republicans are finally asking. Regarding President Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, columnist Reihan Salam writes: “Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican known for his independent streak, has made a conservative case for withdrawal.” Says Chaffetz: “Our military is not a defensive force for rough neighborhoods around the world. They are trained to be an offensive, mission-driven military force to protect the United States of America. They are not trained to be nation builders or policemen… If our mission in Afghanistan is simply to protect the populace and build the nation, then I believe the time has come to bring our troops home.”
Is Chaffetz’s position on Afghanistan a sign of things to come? Salam thinks so, writing: “my guess is that by the 2010 congressional elections, dozens of Republican candidates will be doing the same across the country.”
We can only hope. As a conservative, I have long found it perplexing that to a large extent the American Right has been defined by its enthusiasm for going to war virtually anywhere, for virtually any reason and often for no good reason.
The notion of defending one’s country is something patriots of all political stripes can subscribe to. But that every military action our government commits to should automatically be considered righteous and unassailable is a bizarre position for conservatives, given their natural distrust of government in every other sphere. The Wilsonian idea of “making the world safe for democracy” has never been the language of hard-headed conservative realists, but maniacal ideologues, and yet the liberal dispensation and celebration of such utopian rhetoric by the last Republican president, his party and most self-described conservatives, left the Right a confused mess.
That’s what makes sane conservatives like Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr. of Tennessee so refreshing. Says Duncan: “There is nothing conservative about the war in Afghanistan. The Center for Defense Information said a few months ago that we had spent over $400 billion on the war and war-related costs there. Now, the Pentagon says it will cost about $1 billion for each 1,000 additional troops we send to Afghanistan… Fiscal conservatives should be the ones most horrified by all this spending. Conservatives who oppose big government and huge deficit spending at home should not support it in foreign countries just because it is being done by our biggest bureaucracy, the Defense Department.”
Indeed. Democratic Congressman Barney Frank has said that there would be enough money for national healthcare if we hadn’t spent so much money on the Iraq war. When debating liberals like Frank, it would be nice if conservatives could point out that Americans shouldn’t be spending so much money, period–instead of just arguing in favor of a different government program.
As our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan inch closer toward the decade mark, it seems many Americans are beginning to realize that their own security, both personally and nationally, is more at risk from big government than protected by it. Support for Obama’s outrageously expensive agenda, his performance and his popularity continues to plummet and a recent Pew survey found that 49% of Americans believe the U.S. should start minding its own business globally. Says Duncan: “We have now spent $1.5 trillion that we did not have–that we had to borrow–in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eight years is long enough. In fact, it is too long. Let’s bring our troops home and start putting Americans first once again.”
If current trends are any indication, the basic conservative sentiment that government should mind its own business might be seeing new light, even concerning foreign policy. Writes Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo: “it is clear that a great many conservative Republicans are undergoing a transition: faced with the consequences of eight years of dangerous and debilitating militarism, some are beginning to question the basic premises of interventionism.”
It’s about time. And at this particular juncture, conservatives who still cannot muster any skepticism toward big government abroad-while hypocritically railing against it at home–should finally give up any pretense of being for limited government, concede Barney Frank’s argument, and quit calling themselves “conservative” altogether.
Great Article!!!!
I hope the trend continues, I want my country (and my party) back from the Neocons!!!
I agree that it seems the Republican Party has become the party of endless nation building and utopian idealism. Yet isn’t it just as dangerous to consider oneself anti-war as it would be to be anti-peace? There are times when war is just such as when one has been attacked, maybe even pre-emptively when one knows that attack is imminent. This is not an argument for Wilsonian spreading democracy around the world. Our national interest should be our motivation, not a pretended right to democracy. We should not seek to return to an anti-war right, but a right that is motivated by non-intervention and national interest. For surely a non-interventionist would cede that war is necessary for defensive purposes?
“The Wilsonian idea of “making the world safe for democracy” has never been the language of hard-headed conservative realists, but maniacal ideologues, and yet the liberal dispensation and celebration of such utopian rhetoric by the last Republican president, his party and most self-described conservatives, left the Right a confused mess.”
This muddle mass needs to be reoriented away from Wilsonianism. One step towards doing this is to to spell out what exactly it is that spurs on jihadists, the preeminent terrorist enemy. American foreign policy is a contributing factor but it certainly is not the main one as jihadists are ideologically opposed to all non-Islamic states. In short, it is that drive that constitutes Islamist terrorism. This threat can only be remedied if this is clearly laid out before other nations so they in turn can impress the Muslim state leaders–who also have much to fear from jihadists–can uproot the radicals in their midst. This is the case that paleocons must make to dilute the potency of Wilsonian snake oil and dispel this bogey of terrorism.
Perhaps this is a sign that the neo-cons are returning to their true home in the democratic party.
Let the purge begin!
Although I consider myself to be on the decentralist Green left I have a great deal of respect for conservatives like yourself, Ron Paul, and Pat Buchanan who oppose wars of choice and who would like to see us return to our small Republic non empire, non police state roots. Thanks for being part of the good fight on these issues and it is my sincere hope that anti authoritarian leftists like myself can work together with paleo-cons and Libertarians to oppose the “centrist,” centralist, “Washington Consensus,” muddled middle of “liberal hawks” and neo-cons towards ever greater war abroad, and ever shrinking liberty at home.
Thanks!
Great sentiment, and its been shared by others in the past. Too bad it has zero basis in history of ever being applied. Its real easy for conservatives to complain about democratic wars, and then clam up when their man is doing the fighting. Just like it’s easy for dems to clam up about right-wing economic policies. The two party-system is one party rule, and until the people organize against the elites, nothing’s going to happen. As long as conservatives blame the govt for everything, then right-wing corporations will continue to tell the govt what to do. The argument is so circular, it’s really not worth discussing.
This country is run by oil companies, arms manufacturers, insurance profiteers, and israel-protectors, with tentacles in both parties.
Until conservatives are willing to back up their talk and work with progressives on a host of issues, and give up their anti-union ideology,
and their paymasters, and work with a president whom they obstruct on every single piece of reform, nothing said in this article matters at all. What a laugh. There isn’t a single independent republican in Congress.
The Right has so far to go and it travels so slow, that it will be still crawling out of America’s cavernous George Bush Hole it helped dig when we finally run out time. What the Right must do is no small order – they must simultaneously recognize that the economic rape of the environment must stop, that “jihadism” is a natural reaction to Zionism, that militarism is pure waste, and that capitalism has become cannibalistic. Conservatism is by nature slow and cautious when what we need is a completely new paradigm for running this country. Forget the Right. They will always be the Torys during any Revolution.
Under the Bush/Cheney Regime, the Republican Party came under the control of neoconned Brownshirts. True Republican conservatives will have to split from the Brownshirt Party and form a new party.
Its about time Republicans realized that the war mongering neocons are out to line thier pockects, keep us in a state of terror and fear, destroy the midlle class to provide and endless supply of young men and women to the military, and keep us in a perpetual state of never ending war against terrorists from one country to the next where valuble resources and vergoning economys can be stolen in the name of national security.
Oh , the Democrats are complicit and useless.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by DaveTrotter0076: Return of the Antiwar Right. . . http://bit.ly/8lmrn4 #tlot…
Always great to hear from you Jack. You are one of the few sane voices in American politics today.
The Revolutionary War was America’s only just war.
As Murray Rothbard noted, war is mass murder. We
have to stop glorifying warriors, honoring vets with special
government programs and realize that war doesn’t settle
who’s right but who’s left. And by the way the greatest
growth of government occurs during wartime. The analogy
with the police is faulty because the police can limit
retaliatory action to the actual perpetrators but war indiscriminately murders the innocent along with the guilty.
The imbeciles at the Ayn Rand Institute actually to murder
billions to “defend” the US and Israel.
“For surely a non-interventionist would cede that war is necessary for defensive purposes.”
This is true but irrelevant. None of our wars has been fought for defensive purposes. With the exception of the American Revolution (when we were the “insurgents”), all of our wars have involved attacking other countries and expanding the empire.
[...] http://www.amconmag.com/postright/2009/12/11/return-of-the-antiwar-right/ [...]
So now that the “conservatives” have made their money on all of this madness it’s time to move along?
Conservative means being conservative with life. If so-called conservatives don’t ask the fundamental question as to why it was that we had to extinguish so much life over in the sands of the middle east then they are no more than hypocrites.
This crap will just keep repeating itself until you get the CORRECT fundamentals. Don’t LIE to people (here is where the “conservatives” excelled). The, get your freaking hands off of others’ power- not only shrink government, the federal government that is, but abolish it! Disarm the weapon, which means that the itchy-fingered power-mongers, Right OR Left, have nothing to grasp!
That’s what Conservatism means! None of this “oh, we’re spending too much money” crap when they don’t complain when it’s falling into Their pockets (while their corporate death rays rain down on innocents in a far off land).
[...] Return of the Antiwar Right by Jack Hunter [...]
Another paean to American conquest.
It seems that some can’t stand anything short of blitzkrieg and victory. Other than Grenada and Panama where has American foreign policy lately put the ‘business school that is the US armed forces’ into action and not had ‘the mission’ turn into a cluster-f**k?
So Obama has a load of imperialist-generated washing on his hands and doesn’t want to be the first President hung out to dry for ‘losing a war’. The latter might be worse than failing to win.
Meanwhile the chorus is still pounding out the old song in the background – as the caissons go rolling along..
Let’s be perfectly clear here, the only reason that there is a “return of the antiwar right” within the Republican Party is because there is a Democrat in the White House.
Return? Where did it ever go? You must be taking about all of the limited government fakers that will see limited government as a convenient road to regaining power, and when they regain that power they will “leave”. Again.
Is it then possible to join forces with the antiwar left to make some progress? There is no significant antiwar movement now because of the divisions, largely created by our government. Can we form a bipartisan antiwar coalition that encompasses those on the left and right? I don’t see how this machine can be stopped without big numbers.
How about non-interventionist conservatives undergo a deep study of the history and ideology of the Islamist movement which will reveal the jihadists true radical colors. That way, it will be known to all that the narrative of the West as an inveterate bully of Muslims is fallacious and that jihadists would attack the West even if it had a sterling foreign policy. This will inspire a coalition to press Muslim state leaders to nullify any attempts of jihadists to organize financially or militarily. With the burden of fighting terrorism now falling upon the Muslim leaders, America could then adopt non-interventionism.
Wow all I see is left right battle. No wonder so many Americans have such an us and them philosophy. A house divided will fall. Sound familiar?
Get it together people. Your nation depends on unity and so does the rest of the world. If you want to be world leaders forget war, forget fighting (there’s no such thing as 100% security anyway). And focus on the security measures that make a real difference like building healthy and stable communities. Come together on issues that affect the security of all human kind like poverty, climate change, accessible and affordable health care, and quality education. If you can deal with these issues in your own “house”, then you can be a model of democracy that you migth consider exporting in non-violent ways but more importantly you will be a model that others WANT to emulate.
I have very little respect for either “liberal” or the “conservative” politicians and opinion-makers. With a few honorable exceptions, majority defend their party’s war agenda. And when war venture goes sour, they will soft-peddal back to some mushy center. They can run, but they cannot hide. The problem is the following: both parties pursue money interests no matter what war they initiate. Liberals and their hearth-throbbing appeals to protect the Darfur, are just as much addicted to oil of Darfur, as is any other conservative who wanted US in Iraq. It is the free floating siliva for getting something out of military adventures, nothing else, that drives the phenomena.
US, as the preeminent force on this planet, should have long time ago established a new international LEGAL system for solving problems. Most of the world would gladly accept such leadership. The problem for neocons, and their brethern accross the spectrum, is that legality is binding on all, including US. So instead of funding nasty groups around the world to do our bidding, we would be protected by stronger, sovereign nations, that would police themselves. And that means, no regime change, no nation building, no cries for democracy. And when it comes to our DEFENSE, not an excuse for global adventures, this country and its people have what it takes. Everyone gets it.
“But that every military action our government commits to should automatically be considered righteous and unassailable is a bizarre position for conservatives”
These people you’re referring to as “Conservatives” are anything but conservatives. I make it a point to ask these people what these wars are about and NONE OF THEM have any idea. These people are not Patriotic Americans. They are idiots and I hope the politicians in Washington rob these people blind in taxes to pay for their stupidity THEY DESERVE IT!
Those of us who’ve been trying to expose the Neocons as big-government identity thieves who’ve ripped off conservative rhetoric feel vindicated. Finally. It’s as if the sunlight has pierced through clouds of pseudo-patriotic rhetoric.
This might have had a shred of credibility if it had happen even as late as a year ago, not to mention if it had happend back when the war against Iraq begun. It’s still the same two wars going on now as it was then. The only thing that changed was that a democrat enterd the White House. Just wait until the Republikans are back in power again. The “antiwar right” will die a painfull death again.
Egad, what twisted logic! I haven’t seen any Muslims jihadists trooping around Missouri lately. I’ve seen lots of Americans all over the Muslim parts of the world. Does your “would attack” mean the same as the Israelis “existential” threat, that virtual reality is more real than real reality?
Jack,
I’m disappointed, no mention of Congressman Walter Jones?
[...] demokratski senator za časa Busheve vladavine? Mogoče kak mirovnik organizacije Code Pink? No, izrekel jih je republikanec iz Utaha, Jason Chaffetz, vojno v Afganistanu pa je na svoja pleča dokončno prevzel demokratski predsednik [...]
Congressman John J. Duncan, who is mentioned by Jack Hunter in this excellent article, consistently took the position he is described as taking here, throughout the entire Bush administration. It stands to reason then, that he would be unlikely to switch to a Wilsonian interventionist position as soon as the Republican Party regains the White House.
[...] like to believe that Jack Hunter is right, but the more I think about it the more I think that the conservative base in this country, barring [...]
“Does your “would attack” mean the same as the Israelis “existential” threat, that virtual reality is more real than real reality?”
The jihadist threat may not beat the ‘existential’ level but their radicalism is nonetheless destructive so it pays to be vigilant regarding its machinations. And, yes, jihadists would still have a motive to attack the West, for as Jack Hunter observed in a piece about Fort Hood: “Like Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers, without massive US presence in Muslim nations, Nadal the Islamist would have had much less inspiration to commit murder”–much less inspiration, but they will have inspiration all the same. Why? Hunter continues: “Liberals who believe Islamic terrorism is mostly due to US occupation of Muslim nations are correct, but foolish to believe there does not exist a religious dimension.” Exactly, and it is this religious/ideological dimension that paleocons and libertarians have to include in their foreign policy analysis, which could facilitate American non-interventionism.
Did the Right ever enunciate a mission for US troops in Iraq? Will conservatives ever define what it means to be conservative? Maybe Sarah Palin will define it with her next book about the evils of entitlements like free government cheese called, “Going Roguefort”.
We spent a lot of money to fight Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. We now have enemies that are even more determined to defeat us in the radical Muslim world.
The amount of money we are spending to reduce future attacks is not what is killing us. What is killing us is an uneducated electorate that continues to nominate politicians who offer more “freebies” to an uneducated electorate who cannot picture the cost of tomorrow.
This isnt a choice between war and peace…it’s STILL a choice between war and something much worse….
I DONT CARE who is in office…I want this war WON.
The problem is that Bush redefined the purpose of the Iraq war. In his attempt to sell the war to the American people and the world, he said it was about weapons of mass destruction but afterwords the rhetoric switched to liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator and that a free Iraq would be good for the world. In other words, he went from a concrete self-interest defense to a more abstract wilsonian notion of spreading democracy for the overall security of the world. Obviously the switch was made because it became apparent that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The conversative thing to do would have been to acknowledge the the intelligence failure (assuming thats what really happened) and make an effort to leave asap without leaving the region destabilized (thats why I supported the surge and wished they would have done that much sooner). It was a huge mistake to adapt the Wilsonian narrative as a justification for the war. No convservative should have continued supporting the war at that point.