In so many columns, in so many ways, I have repeatedly made the case that an unquestioning attitude toward America's wars, always masquerading as “patriotism,” is completely at odds with traditional conservatism—whether in a libertarian fiscal sense, or even old fashioned Russell Kirk-style pragmatism, who believed history and experience should be guides above ideology. Nevertheless, the single-issue minded (that single issue being war, war and more war) neoconservatives successfully transformed George W. Bush’s Republican Party into eager world’s policeman—and they intend to keep it that way.
I don’t always agree with pundit Ann Coulter, but major kudos to a conservative of her stature taking on the neocons by attacking them on the very issue (their only issue) where they’ve done the most damage. Defending Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele’s "controversial" questioning of Obama’s foreign policy, Coulter writes:
Republicans used to think seriously about deploying the military. President Eisenhower sent aid to South Vietnam, but said he could not "conceive of a greater tragedy" for America than getting heavily involved there.
But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.
What if Obama decides to invade England because he's still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?
Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war — and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)
I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.