Pillars of Conservatism: Defense
- Posted by MacStansbury on September 28th, 2005 filed in John, Politics
If there’s anything that can be said for American Conservatives, it’s that it is we who are for the strong national defense. Not that American Liberals are against that, per se, but it is not perceived to be one of their strengths. In fact, the issue has become so synonymous with the conservative movement that it is generally assumed that the Republicans are pro-war, and the Democrats are pro-peace in all instances.
While I believe this to be a generalization, what you cannot say is that the protection of our country is not one of the pillars of conservatism. After the last election cycle, “the War” was so ingrained into our collective psyche, that it was hard to imagine how, in the 90s, the military was generally regarded as an afterthought. The dangers of the “peace dividend” were ignored.
It was the fall of the Soviet Union, and it’s change into “Glastnost” that started the complacency. And the relatively easy Operation Desert Storm led to an era like that in the 1920s, where it was thought that we’d finally triumphed over armed conflict. It was this attitude that led to the more moderate thinking, a centrist world-view that led to the election of Bill Clinton. It was that same election that led the same terrorist network to believe that we were ripe plumbs, ready for the taking.
It was 1993 when Osama bin Laden’s network tried to bring down the World Trade Centers. The lack of response to this, and other such terrorist activities all over the world led him to believe that he would have to do something remarkable to start a war. It was that concept of appeasement that was bin Laden’s worst enemy, and the constant capitulation was the impetus for his repeated attacks.
However, when George W. Bush was elected, the response was overwhelming force instead of a decade of policing and “talk.” After bin Laden got what would be sufficient to start a war, he figured the Americans had lost the fighting spirit that made her a great nation. He couldn’t have been more wrong.
Even in my own experience, I found the military of today to be every bit the equal, in heart, of any of those who came before. As we learned from Email from Iraq, those boots on the ground are the ones that know. There is nothing like being there to authenticate your beliefs.
Pages 1-39 in the 2004 GOP Platform express just what the administration was trying to accomplish. Interestingly, on an election that was truly based on one issue (the War in Iraq), there’s precious little said. However, it’s power is in its truth:
We are ever mindful that American troops remain on the ground in Iraq, working steadfastly to help the Iraqi people achieve stability and democracy. We therefore welcome declarations from responsible political leaders of both parties that our nation will persevere in our mission there, not cut and run. The American people need to hear this message. People in Baghdad and beyond need to hear it. The enemy needs to hear it. Most importantly, American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines risking their lives in Iraq need to hear it.
We condemn inconsistent, ambiguous, and politically expedient statements on that point. To the extent such wavering encourages our adversaries to fight harder, our men and women in uniform suffer the consequences. Their mission is difficult enough. Uncertainty about America’s commitment to that mission makes it immeasurably more difficult.
In Iraq, America is serving the cause of liberty, peace, and our own security. America accepted a difficult task in Iraq. We know that for all these reasons, we will finish that task.
It’s the scar in our history, the Vietnam conflict. It wasn’t a war that we lost on the battlefield, but in the offices in Washington, and the bureaus of the news. We were led to believe that this was the failing of trying to be a super-power, and trying to keep others as free as we were. As Ronald Reagan said:
…And the veterans of Vietnam who were never welcomed home with speeches and bands, but who were never defeated in battle and were heroes as surely as any who have ever fought in a noble cause, staged their own parade on Constitution Avenue. As America watched them–some in wheelchairs, all of them proud–there was a feeling that this nation–that as a nation we were coming together again and that we had, at long last, welcomed the boys home.
The Great Communicator spoke those words at the Arlington National Cemetery to commemorate the tomb of the Unknown Soldier who fought during the Vietnam War. At the time, 1984, there were many who still bore the hatred and contempt for those trying to keep the Vietnamese a free people, simply because we were using the might of the military, instead of the impotence of “discussions.”
It is this very attitude that makes us who we are.
Other Pillars:
Economics
dingo says:
Not all of us liberals are pansy-ass pacifist. I actually know only one liberal who didn’t completely agree with the war in Afghanistan. It is more the policy decisions and “alleged” lies (see, I put alleged in there just for you Beth) about the impetus for war in Iraq we are pissed off at. Only 2 of my friends are for a withdrawal in Iraq. One is a vegan, the other is a ardent conservative. Go figure. Other than that, everyone seems to be for sticking in there until we finish the job. We just want someone better at running the gig than Rummy.
Fred says:
Go Republicans go!!!
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1117445.php
Pillars, values, hot air.
MacStansbury says:
Fred, I know you’re kind of froth-at-the mouth deranged sometimes…but what in the world does a story about a sailor lost at sea have to do with…anything?
seriously, what?
Darleen says:
Mac
I got a story at the link about some list of proposed cuts to offset Katrina costs…includes some military stuff..it also includes freezing congressional pay..so I think Fred jumps the gun a little.
BTW… I got a couple of self-proclaimed libs posting in my comments…one a usual longwinded gal who won’t get her own blog, that declares this admin is “fascist” and that all of us military supporters just “fetishize soldiers.”
Amazing the amount of hate of the military then the ironic charge of “chickenhawk” aimed at Republicans.
Larry says:
I was a child during the Viet Nam war. I remember the weekly updates on the number of US Soldiers killed in the prior week. I could never understand the significance of this. I now realize it was the propaganda machine ramping up for the anti-war movement yet to come. College student hold a unique place in society. They are essentially parasites, feeding knowledge from the institution and their living from parents or taxpayer largesse. Yet they are always vocal and the media plays to them as though they are the wisened leaders, hardened by years in the intellectual trenches. Many on the left have never left the intellectual incubator of the college atmosphere. They have never had to make decisions about real issues like where to work or live to best satisfy the needs of their families. Or decisions that require compromise at the expense of principles because the needs of family supersede the romantic ideology embraced by their campus cronies.
The anti-war movement is a microcosm of this intellectual infancy. They want to hold this noble belief that people should work out their conflicts without the intrusion of force. The problem is that while turning the other cheek is admirable as a religious principle, in a world that is governed by the aggressive use of force (See Rush Limbaugh’s 35 Truths of Life) turning the other cheek gets you dead or enslaved. It is naive to assume that the Islamic world will suddenly discontinue it 700 year push to bring the infidel into complkiance or face death. Arguments that our foreign policy has caused the current situation in the Middle East ignore history. Our Foreign Policy may have supressed the aggressive growth of Islam much like the Government of Marshal Tito suppressed the hostilities between Serb and Croats in the former Yugoslavia.
The rise of Islam as an enemy of Christianity and Judaism will not be eliminated by appeasement. The lesson is learned over and over and still the intellectual infants on the left refuse to face reality.
dingo says:
Larry, where are you going with this. I am confused. Are you saying we should ban universities?
And as for parasites? I would say the Doctors, Engineers, Teachers, etc is a pretty good return on investment. I don’t know about you, but I would prefer going to a brain surgeon who had more than a GED.
Additionally, my “parasitic” edumication allows me to make a pretty decent salary which I return a lot as a big chunk of taxes, far outweighing whatever I “leeched” from the system.
Larry says:
What I am saying is that the college crowd - while sucking the knowledge from the instructors (a parasitic relationship because they feed off the host) and living off the largesse of parent or government loans (obviously not 100%) are looked at with a romantic notion of wisdom by the media. They really care what college student think.
Meanwhile back on earth (as Ann Coulter might say); some of us who have graduated (I have a Masters degree and am damn proud of the days I spent as a parasite – sometimes I’d like to go back) have moved on to larger issues like finding a suitable job, housing, and education for our children. We haven’t the time to pursue the esoteric nuances of whether 16 words in a state of the union speech constitute an impeachable offense.
What I am pointing out is the inconsistency in elevating the anti-war movement as an intellectual juggernaut with dim wits the likes of Cindy Sheehan at the head followed by a pack of neophyte college students (or those who intellectually have never left the halcyon days of their youth) over the experiences of those on the ground in combat and those who have been in the trenches of real life.
[more damn parentheses]
Fred says:
Sailor lost at sea? Mac, do you need a remedial course in IE? As Darleen noted it was a story about how much Republicans really value members of the military. Let me save you the trouble of clicking on the link:
GOP lawmakers propose cuts to offset Katrina costs
By Rick Maze
Times staff writer
A group of House Republicans have proposed a plan to offset the costs of relief and rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina that includes trimming military quality-of-life programs, including health care.
Possible sources of funding cuts to free up money for Katrina relief include reduced health benefits, consolidation of the three military exchange systems and the closure of the military’s stateside school system.
While I agree with the proposed action to freeze Congressional pay, the rest is typical of a party that praises the military on one hand and turns around and kicks service members in the teeth when ever they get the chance.
MacStansbury says:
yeah..there goes my sterling record of never going to the wrong page.
yeah, the link you gave (as usual) didn’t work, and I was trying to find out where the heck the story was. I guess, everybody else and their neighbor was hitting it at the same time. I apologize. just following the New York Times journalistic integrity guidelines.
dingo says:
Larry, if you actually look at the demographics to the people who showed up at the protest in DC, there was a surprising LACK of the college sub-section. The largest group was 35-50 followed by 12-18. So, I think your perception of the anti-war movement might be a little out of line with what is happening on the ground.
I will agree that Cindy Sheehan is a nutcase. I have never agree with her or stance, but I would never attempt to stop any American from speaking their mind as long it is peaceful.
as for the emphases on 16 words. There was the same thing going on during Clinton’s term in office. Remember “is.” It is just the same thing, different party.
As for Ann Coulter - you need to wean yourself off of her, man. If you want to talk about parasites, she would qualify as one. She takes a lot, but adds absolutely nothing to public discourse in this country. I could give you as many arguments that she is as “anti-American” and Sheehan.
Larry says:
Dingo - this was an analogy. Are you deeply offended because A) you are an educated parasite, or B) you envy them? I didn’t follow what was on the ground because it is, was, and ever shall be irrelevant. I never suggested intervening to stop them. I never even suggested it should not be covered - you must have me confused with those seeking to stiffle free speech - think Bill Bennett.
The 35-50 year olds who participate in this are stuck in the 60’s mentality (is this your demographic?). Viet Nam was a quagmire . . . Iraq is a quagmire . . . Nixon was evil . . . Bush is evil. It’s all emotionalism surrounded by good intentions. BFD. The rest of us have to go to work. Many of us have young families and friends with young men and women who may choose the service of their country. We honor those who make the sacrifice to serve. And we pray for those who have fallen. You can condescend to me all you want with your pseudo-intellectualism. So what?
The 16 words clearly indicate the President was relying on British intelligence. That was and is true. The evidence supports it. Much like the evidence supports the fact that Willie spilled a little of himself - think Devil in the Blue Dress. You can attempt to change reality all you want. IDGAFF. You cannot be successful at it however. You are still forced to live in a world where water is wet and ice cream melts in the summer.
And Ann Coulter adds humor; perhaps you do not like her humor; TFB. I don’t find 99 44/100th percent of the Hollywood left humorous either; but I don’t get my hanky out - get over it.
dingo says:
Larry, I wasn’t offended. It takes a lot to really get my drawers in a bunch. I was just pointing out the numbers. And, yes, I am highly educated. 7 years in higher education to be exact. But the only person who has paid for that schooling is me, and as I said, I pay a shi’ite load in taxes. So, if you want to think I am a parasite… eh… doesn’t bother me. Want to call me a pseudo intellectual… fine with me too.
Anyhoo, back to the real issue - how does being a responsible adult (eg. raising a family, holding down a job, etc) make anyone more qualified to judge issues of foreign policy? I am not saying that it is not something that every American should strive for, but I fail to see the connection between the two.
And, no, I don’t see the humor in Ann Coulter. She jokes about killing Americans. She demeans all women in the military. She is against freedom of religion and freedom of speech. None of it, I find funny. Call me a stick in the mud, but joking about Timothy McVey killing different Americans than the ones he did kill is not something I chuckle at. Honeslty, I am surprised anyone does.