AFF's Doublethink

Jeremy Lott — August 23, 2004 at 1:36 am

Tim,

Not bad but a few quibbles that fall into the fun-with-labels category:

1) Esoteric Straussians? So are you saying that All Straussians are esoteric or just these ones? And what do you mean my esoteric here? It’s not as clear as you’d think. For that matter, some readers might benefit from an explanation of what makes a Straussian a Straussian. And what about neoconservatives who were not all that influenced by Strauss?

2) You avoid that trap that many do by saying that David Frum is Canadian-born rather than a Canadian citizen. (He became a citizen of the U.S. after September 11.) BUT, calling him a “devout pro-choicer” is off the mark. He’s a splitter. In the post in question (http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary110603.asp) he wrote:

“Now let me say right off: I am not pro-life. I think abortion ought to be legal for the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy and available to protect the health of the mother during the weeks thereafter. I don’t see this as a matter of fundamental human rights, so much as one of accommodating reality. I can’t defend Roe v. Wade as a legal decision, and I would be very glad to see abortion become much more rare than it now, but if the law attempts to suppress abortion entirely, it is the law that will fail, rather than abortion that will disappear. Please donâ??t email me about this: I have thought about this issue just as hard as you have, and I’m not going to change my mind.

“But precisely because I believe in accommodating the realities of abortion, I think those on the pro-abortion side need to acknowledge that the no-concessions approach of the organized abortion lobby is catastrophically mistaken. Abortion rights would be much more secure if they were confined within reasonable limits that squared better with the conscience of the nation.”

Best, Jeremy

person — August 23, 2004 at 12:18 pm

Krauthammer is also prochoice.

“I happen to favor legalized abortion (and voted for it in a 1992 Maryland referendum on the question), but I similarly believe that states should determine whether and to what extent abortion ought to be legal in their communities.”

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer110899.asp

politicaobscura — August 23, 2004 at 12:43 pm

You just got your butt kicked at NRO. Rightfully so, given the way you distorted so many people’s opinions.

J. Laksin — August 23, 2004 at 1:29 pm

In general, I have to say that these kinds of conservative purity tests are pretty noxious exercises, obscuring much more than they enlighten. I mean, is there something wrong with conservatives revering Wilson, FDR, or Truman? Wilson may have had some misplaced convictions about the power of international institutions to legislate world peace, but would anyone seriously contest the notion that the best chance for peace, or at least the absence of war, among nations lies in their embracing certain democratic notions about the fundamental right of different nations, civilizations and peoples to exist? Relatedly, does the New Dealâ??s expansion of federal government trump FDRâ??s leadership during WWII? Are we to credit conservatives with fighting the Cold War while excising Trumanâ??s role in the conflict?

Finally, without rehearsing the whole WMD debate, let me just make one observation: you seem to suggest that the fact that folks like Kristol accept some liberal positions, this makes their motives, as well as their conservative credentials, suspect. If you say so. Only let me propose that this line of yours–â??So a war most conservatives had backed as a preemptive and unapologetic defense of our homeland and our allies from killer weapons was being explained to us after the fact as a humanitarian mission and an enforcement of UN resolutions.â?–calls to mind nothing so much as the braying of the Moveon.org set. Are we to take you for a Kerry supporter, then? A potential betrayer to the conservative cause?

Anthony Gancarski — August 23, 2004 at 1:57 pm

The argument Carney uses — for the most part, the one that Sam Francis used re: the Frum article earlier this summer — is predicated on a false assumption. As the paleos and the leftists who bait the ‘neocons’ say time and again, they are “Straussian” because they embrace the “noble lie.” This is a superficial, even fraudulent read, rooted in the assumption that the “neocons” have ulterior motives and that no other ideological cadre has them. As long as you accept the idea that Buchanan [or Sam Francis, David Corn, or anyone else spouting the same stuff about elective wars] is ideologically pure, the Strauss card has credibility. But as political biography indicates time and again, no one is ideologically pure. Claims of purity from the antiwar folks are, charitably speaking, subjective. I say this as arguably the only person in America who has emerged from opposition to support the war this year. — Anthony Gancarski

Daniel McCarthy — August 23, 2004 at 2:06 pm

I’m sorry, but not surprised, to see how inaccurate the criticisms of Carney’s piece have been. Carney used exactly the right word in describing Frum’s adherence to a pro-choice position as devout. Jeremy Lott quotes from as saying, “please don’t email me about this…I am not going to change my mind.” If that’s not “devout,” what is? Carney did not call Frum extreme over enthusiasically zealous, he said that he was steadfast.

Ramesh Ponnuru on NRO is even further off base; he compounds and amplifies Frum’s distortions of Robert Novak’s views on Hezbollah. What Novak wrote, as quoted in the Frum piece, was that Israel is Hezbollah’s primary target, not the U.S. Do Ponnuru and Frum deny this? If they don’t, then how can they — Frum directly, Ponnuru by implication from his defense of Frum — accuse Novak of “terror denial”? If they do disagree with that Hezbollah is more interested in Israel than in the U.S., fair enough, let them prove the point, rather than insinuating as Frum did that Novak doesn’t know about or care about Hezbollah crimes against Americans.

(Another question for Ramesh and Frum: do you guys really think that Novak believes Hezbollah to be less of a threat to the U.S. than al-Qaeda simply because Hezbollah says so? Frum has said it, with practically no evidence. Does Ponnuru accept it?)

Ponnuru simply makes no sense when he accuses Carney of omitting material that would clarify Frum’s take on Novak’s views of the Afghanistan attack. If anyone is guilty of a significant omission it’s Frum, since it’s mighty difficult to get from Novak’s quote that the CIA’s inability to get bin Laden, “leads to an irresistible implulse to satisfy Americans by pulverizing Afghanistan,” constitutes “espousing defeatism.” The quote from Novak says nothing about defeat in Afghanistan, and if criticizing the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden is deafeatism, then there are a whole lot of defeatists on all sides of the political spectrum nowadays.

The neocon scream machine is churning out nonsense in an attempt to tar Carney’s piece, since they don’t actually bother trying to refute its substantial point — that neoconservatives plainly are not really conservative at all.

Bunnie — August 23, 2004 at 2:23 pm

Tim,

Excellent piece. I’m so sick of these big government aggressors trying to snuff out true conservatism.

Rock on.

Also, I think you and Ramesh should engage in a drinking contest to resolve any issues you have.

paul gottfried — August 23, 2004 at 2:32 pm

I am delighted to discover Mr. Carney’s comments, having been the victim of collateral damage from Frum’s graceless strike against the “unpatriotic right.” What might also be considered is the morally compromised character of that “conservative movement” that Mr. Carney’s subjects got to occupy and reconstruct. Paul Gottfried

Timothy Carney — August 23, 2004 at 3:13 pm

I’m glad I’ve gotten some reaction. Let me make some points in response to my critics (thanks to McCarthy for doing some of that).

1) Yes, my use of the word “devout” with regard to Frum’s abortion stance meant that it was unshakable, as evidenced by his “I’m not going to change my mind.” I never claimed to be a master of the language. “Steadfastly pro-choice” would have been better.

2) I never said the neocons were Straussians as two of the comments suggested I did. I said they have reputations as esoteric Straussians. I don’t think I can be criticized for the possible inaccuracy of a ubiquituos charge that I merely cite in order to say it does not apply in this case at least.

3) On a general point, I am not performing any “purity” test. I am not saying these guys ought to be thrown out. I think it takes quite a lousy reading of my piece to infer as much.

No, I am (a) reporting that they may be leaving of their own volition (as evidenced by Kristol’s quote); and (b) saying it’s odd that they were calling the shots last year and attempting their own purges considering that their fault lines with most of the right are showing themselves to be sizable.

James M — August 23, 2004 at 3:32 pm

Kristol advises McCain to blast the Christian right in 2000 http://www.forward.com/issues/2000/00.03.03/news.html

Max Boot compares Paleo-cons to Charles Coughlin in the Wall Street Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002840

Krauthammer, Safire and the gang make vile disgusting comments about the most popular movie of 2004, The Passion of Christ http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3264.html

I beginning to see a pattern

Downto — August 23, 2004 at 3:58 pm

Interestingly, Straussians themselves would take different sides of the argument Frum makes re” abortion. West Coasters would be disinclined to agree. East Coasters probably wouldn’t reveal what they thought and if they did it would depend on which East coaster you were talking about. In any case, Frum really needs to hush on the pro-life issue. He arm-chair philosophizes on the issue like some old grampa musing about next seasons crop. Way to casual and little or no understanding of all the arguments for and against abortion, except slapdash strawmen to kick over as he “bravely stakes out the middling position”. (sigh) My hero…

Downto — August 23, 2004 at 4:10 pm

Tim:

Regarding your comment, it is a line well walked. The neo-cons can also be said to have conservative leanings, but are not conservative. Thus, if they play nice conservatives can play ball with them. Sadly though, you have shown that they don’t always play nice, which I think stems from their historicl roots: being former liberals they occassionally adopt the more nasty tactics which conservatives try (and fail) to avoid for fear of fostering distrust. One such tactic is outing people from a movement. Neo-cons are welcome to join forces with conservatives on a whole raft of issues, but when there is disagreement, leave it at that. No need to co-opt the conservative movement or attempt to out conservatives from their own camp, jsut as we have no need of outing anyone else from anything.

Thank you, Tim, for defending conservatism from redefinition.

And to the neo-cons I have this: With respect to your prefix and conservatism, and in the words of LLCoolJ, “Don’t call it a come back, ’cause we’ve been here for years!”

roach — August 23, 2004 at 6:27 pm

Tim, I thought the article thoughtful and on point. While I supported the war for my own, Derbyshire-like, paleocon reasons, it is undeniable that the neocon framework of Hawkiwsh Wilsonianism and ardor for democracy were key to the administration’s strategic thinking about the war. This thinking was also the key to its misteps and mistakes.

Paleocons have raised in general good criticisms, in particular their arguments that (1) the attack and continued US presence in Iraq will have costs that might exceed its benefits by creating new terrorists and (2) the Middle East likely cannot adapt to liberal democracy.

Nonetheless, there have been paleocon voices in favor of the war chiefly from the argument that it was important to remain on the offensive, to put teeth in the Bush doctrine that you are either with the terrorists or against them, and to show that the US can and will project power even in the questionable case. This kind of “punitive raid” foreign policy has ample antecedents ranging from the attack on the Barbary Pirates to the US attack on Tripoli in 1985. It is likely important that we follow through in Iraq until some kind of stability is achieved because, otherwise, the myth of the American paper tiger will persist. The U.S. will be seen as incapble and unwilling to project power when it involves either a longterm commitment or a counterinsurgency. This reputation has hovered over the US since Vietnam to its detriment.

As the war rages on, I am content with what I have always been content with (but which the administration’s ambitious goals unfortunately would define as a scaling back of objectives): Some kind of reasonably normal and friendly regime in Iraq that will not threaten the US or its neighbors. Whether it is a democratic regime or looks more like Pinochet’s Chile I am practically indifferent. Indeed, I lean towards the latter as I think it has more chance of success.

The biggest problem with our Iraq adventure is that the neocon strategic framework has filtered down to the level of tactical decisionmaking. Their was no “lack of postwar planning,” under the strategic thinking of Cheney and Wolfowitz and Kristol and others. They literally believed that the people of Iraq would peacefully rally to their liberators by adapting to their newfound freedom, proceeding to engage in commerce and civil discourse, shedding the habits of deception and brutality required to survive under Saddam’s Iraq. As thorough-going moderns, the appeals of nationalism and religious extremism are always one McDonald’s away from being eradicated, as far as the Bill Kristols of the world are concerned. The appeal of religious belief and ethnic unity remains for them something of an anomaly, rather than an abiding human aspiration.

The final problem with the neocon approach has been the whole concept that the Middle East must become liberal and democratic or that we are inevitably and perenially the victims of Islamist terrorism. This is the same “root causes” thinking behind the other liberal crusade, the War on Poverty. Conservatives and other realistic people know that some things can be dealt with more easily and efficiently by treating the symptoms. Crime for example seems best combatted by locking up criminals for a long time when we find them, rather than by “draining the swamp” as we are advised to do in the case of Islamic fundamentalism.

As U.S. prestige for much of the last 200 years shows, the war of ideas might more easily be waged by a good example rather than by direct intervention. Compare the respect for U.S. institutions in Eastern Europe compared to Latin America, for example.

I’d be happy to swat Islamist flies with the occasional raid and bombing campaign coupled with aggressive covert operations, rather than remaking these cesspools one at a time ad infinitum. We should scale back objectives in Iraq, impose law and order through the most effective means before any attempts at democratic education, and scale back our presence as soon as these achievable goals are met.

My hawkish palecon $.02.

neocon hater — August 23, 2004 at 7:25 pm

Why shouldn’t we kick the neocons out? They tried to kick conservatives out and drove the conservative movement right into the ground. I say boot them all out.

john randolph — August 23, 2004 at 8:19 pm

It’s purge, or be purged. That’s the only way to deal with these Trotskyites of the “Right.”

Jerry Pournelle — August 24, 2004 at 3:04 am

Like Professor Gottfried, I was caught in the collateral damage as the egregious Frum sought to read out of the Conservative movement all of us who were not eager to invade Iraq (and after Iraq Lord alone knows who else); so thank you.

Considering that I was a protege of both Russell Kirk and Stefan Possony (both of whom stood as godfather to one of my sons), I would have thought my conservative credentials adequate. I may not be as smart as Frum, but surely I deserve some presumption of sincerity? But apparently not. So I will have to remain out here in the outer darkness.

But where the egregious Frum got the notion that those of us who were reluctant to invade Iraq were also hoping for defeat is well beyond me. I actually hope the neo-Jacobins are correct and that within each Iraqi heart there is a yearning for freedom and democracy, and that the Iraqis will learn to compromise and put the general good above their narrow sectarian interests; but since there are factions in the US with far less cause for bitter memories and far fewer burning desires for revenge, and with far less developed tribal sense, but who yet put their interests above those of the nation — surely I am permitted to hope for Iraq but believe democracy there to be unlikely? But perhaps the egregious Frum doesn’t think so; certainly he didn’t cut any slack for anyone, not even Stephen Tonsor.

Well, a day.

Thank you.

Jerry Pournelle

Jaime — August 24, 2004 at 8:03 am

I used to label myself a conservative. After 10 (or so) years of being a subscriber to NR I cancelled the subscription (I began to notice a strain of thought that bugged me for its inconsistency) and began to label myself a paleo-conservative. Nowadays I label myself a constitutionalist. Instead of reading NR I read LewRockwell.com

The truth of the matter is that the GOP is moving back to its roots and these new-cons are the perfect people to do so — Wars without end, amen.

Was Mr. Krauthammer, ever, a conservative anything?

James M, good listing. James Bovard wrote about The Bush Betrayal.

The Collegian — August 24, 2004 at 10:35 am

I think while it would be nice to simply say its all or nothing in the application of conservative theory on government, the reality is that it will never happen. There will always be that segment of the population on the left that will oppose lower taxes, saving babies, smaller government, or putting America first.

We shouldn’t lose sight over the similarities we have with neocons that we can work from to push our platform. At a time in which center-right politicians like George Bush have a hard enough time being elected, it would be damn near impossible for a conservative to win. Thus while we disagree with Kristol on some of his policies, lets go forth with him to work on life issues. (He is devoutly pro-life). And while we may disagree with Frum on regime foreign policy, lets work with him to cut taxes. And if you disagree with Ponnuru on Frum, I hope you agree with him on homosexual marriage.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, that now is possibly the worst time for a crack up on the right. For the right to break up now would, IMHO, risk the possibility of being consigned to the back seat of American government for years. I for one would rather have the halfway accomplishments of the neocons, George Bush and Congress than to be return to the bad old days of the 1960s when we couldn’t pass anything.

(I know no one has brought up the election here beyond the possible desertion of neocons to Kerry, but I do feel that the strength of our political movement is intimately tied to the willingness of the intellectual movement to take off the table our differences to work on those things on which we agree)

Anthony Gancarski — August 24, 2004 at 10:40 am

“While neocons have reputations as esoteric Straussians” is a nice way of referencing the Straussian poison meme without the messy business of having to advance it yourself. Everyone here knows how that sort of thing is done.

Chuck Bowen — August 24, 2004 at 10:45 am

Krauthammer was a Mondale Speechwriter, David Frum is an expatriate who hates his home country, Canada, and Max Boot is a first generation emigree from Eastern Europe.

Frum and Krauthammer vicously attacked Mel Gibson for making The Passion. Frum alleged Gibson “might be” a “Holocaust denier”; Mondale’s speechwriter called the Passion of the Christ a ‘blood libel.’

Frum, not mentioned in this article, was a big Chalabi supporter, a man stand excused of Treason against the United States of America. Indeed, Frum should be facing the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and be sent back to Canada.

I am not sure why we still need to debate these things, but I guess its because the real right has become gun shy about calling these folks traitors.

Philip Nelson — August 24, 2004 at 2:26 pm

I find this debate between conservatives and so called ‘neocons’ quite odd. It seems to me that many are forgetting the lessons of history. Namely:

WWII demonstrated clearly that people like Hitler and Saddam will never be sated with power. It also demonstrated how necessary it is for a nation with power to follow through on its words. Hitler never should have been allowed to reoccupy the Rhineland.

Now, there are those who say that we should be the friends of liberty everywhere, but the defenders only of our own. But that is a concept that is essentially meaningless in the modern world. Consider the Monroe Doctrine. It was applied to the Western Hemisphere. Why? Geographical proximity. Oceans were a great obstacle to the projection of power. But today, they have been rendered irrelevant by trans-national organizations and modern technology. Therefore the Monroe Doctrine, if considered in the same spirit as it was originally, applies to the entire world. Every nation is a neighbor of every other nation.

Defending our liberty therefore required us to stop Saddam in the first Gulf War, prove we meant what we said in the second (the greatest reason for the war, and one which pre-empts pre-emption), and take the battle to the ground of the terrorists- instead of trying to passively prevent all attacks, a practical impossibility.

And one lesson of WWI demonstrates that rebuilding a belligerent nation is necessary if a cycle of violence is to be avoided, and it was a lesson we applied successfully after WWII to Germany and Japan. Nation-building is nothing new for the US, and it is not ‘neoconservative’.

And believing that there are people in Iraq who love freedom and can be empowered is not ‘neoconservative’ either. People are much the same everywhere- there are good people, and evil people. In the West, the good have in general run things. (Think of what it would be like if our own home-grown criminals ran the show here- and think of how in some ways the effects of Prohibition reflected what that might be like.) In the Middle East, the evil have in general run things. The right slice of the population must be empowered; and that will take time, as it always has.

But to say that the people of the Middle East are incapable of handling a free society is extremely arrogant and short-sighted, and is partly a result of the treasonous mainstream media skewing of the situation in Iraq. I quote from Omar, one of the three brothers doing the Iraq the Model blog (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com):

“You sit in a restaurant like this one and see families relaxing with their children playing and having fun late at night and you feel that thereâ??s â??somethingâ?? wrong in the way MSM is dealing with the Iraqi issue. I watch TV and I see hell breaking around me then I go outside and see enough normalcy AND progress to make me believe that the people in the media are not here to report howâ??s life going but rather they are here reporting pre-prepared stories and to be faced with something that contradicts the picture they have in their minds would be really annoying and will mean more hard work to try to find the truth or something close to it.

So let me see, Iâ??m a reporter in Iraq and Iâ??m here to tell stories that sell from a land that has been invaded, as everyone is saying it was invaded and not liberated. God, that must be awful! Ok so I need destruction, death, fear, clashes in the streets, angry mob…etc. Where do families having dinner in a place they couldnâ??t afford before the war, or a father buying a new car for his son which he also couldnâ??t afford before, or a man renewing his house which was falling apart, or free speech and flourishing business, where does all this fit in such a frame?! It doesnâ??t! Besides, where’s the action in such boring stories!? Moreover, there are pictures of death and destruction and they only need some â??further clarificationâ??, and thatâ??s easier than making a whole new story. So why bother! I already have frames for good stories and Iâ??ve worked hard in that and it would be a shame to waste all that effort and start all over again. So letâ??s get the story we worked on and get the hell out of here.”

roach — August 24, 2004 at 3:34 pm

Well Philip, we can look a bit further back in history and see how hair-trigger alliances led a minor regional conflict between Serbia and Austria to metastaze into a World War. Countering aggression by taking sides in every parochial conflict is not a formula for world peace. That is the central paleoconservative insight; it is usually in our interest to remain neutral and indifferent to regional conflicts.

The problem with your view is that every agression is viewed through the same lens, even though comparatively few agressors can achieve world threat status. Hitler taking over the Rhineland is not the same as the Chad-Libyan border dispute or the Central American Soccer War. . . at least not to sensible people. Just as in criminal law we do not prosecute those that ineffectively “attempt murder” by poking needles in a voodoo dolls, we are just as within our rights to ignore or contain lesser threats in the international scene.

And the oceans remain no joke as an obstacle to foreign threats for the US. The only way people can attack us now are terrorists exploiting our obsession with liberal immigration policies–a luxury at best.

Philip Nelson — August 24, 2004 at 3:53 pm

No- not every aggression. Saddam’s military was ‘on paper’ larger than ours before Gulf War I; and he could have easily have taken Saudi Arabia, thereby ensuring massive oil revenue with which to continue building his military, not to mention giving him significant power over the rest of the world. Gulf War I was not prosecuted over a minor border dispute.

Also, immigration is by no means the only opening for terrorists. It’s not very difficult to get into the US, if only for a visit. We cannot check every ship entering a port for nuclear weapons- not any time soon, at any rate. Even if we completely shut the borders today, fifth columnists probably still lurk among us. Terrorists could buy criminals in this nation to do their work, even through closed borders. Prohibition failed, the war on drugs is failing- could we really stop the smuggling of small quantites of potent WMD’s into the US, even with closed borders?

We cannot isolate ourselves to that extent; it is a practical impossibility. Passive defense cannot succeed in a free society; our defense must be active, as it was in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War.

Are you really willing to see the occasional unpreventable successful attack on the US in order to follow an isolationist policy? Enforcing good immigration policy is not a panacea for terrorist attacks; it will help, but not solve, the problem. And the Maginot Line demonstrates what happens when you think you’ve covered the lines of attack, and hunker down in a fortress…..

Richard — August 24, 2004 at 7:20 pm

” I mean, is there something wrong with conservatives revering Wilson”

Don’t know about conservatives, but revering Wilson should call into question one’s sanity. Without Woody getting into WWI, there would probably have been a peace of exhaustion. Dolph might have ended his days raving in a Bavarian old soldiers home.

Leave aside his goofy statements such as “the war to end all wars.” If he uttered that statement believing it, he was a moron.

al — August 25, 2004 at 7:49 am

Are there any Straussians who don’t subscribe to Strauss’s notion of esoteric reading? It sort of undermines his entire project, if you don’t accept the principle–how do you get Plato to come out the way Strauss says he does, without esotericism. And sort of kicks Maimonides out of the Canon, unless you accept the Medievals on him.

Also the cross pollination between the neoconservatives “project” and the Straussian acedemic project is well established. Trust Harvey Mansfield on that.

Timothy Carney — August 25, 2004 at 10:32 am

I am thrilled at the reaction and debate following this piece.

Relevant is today’s op-ed by Frum in the Wall Street Journal, headline “Pro-Choice, but Still the Best Choice,” calling on Rudy Giuliani to run for President in 2008.

Nick Danger — August 25, 2004 at 1:31 pm

Anthony Gancarski apparently thinks that because he excuted one of the most laughable flip-flops of the last year on the interventionist issue, it gives him “authority” on ideological purity, as if a year spent as a whore would make one an authority on chastity!

Ken Shepherd — August 26, 2004 at 10:00 am

I think there was a legitimate conservative case for war in addition to the neocon argument for war with Iraq. That case is not based on “preemption” but rather the failure of the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein to fully and transparently live up to the international agreements behind the armistice ending the original hostilities in the first Gulf War.

Since Saddam Hussein failed to fully cooperate in good faith with the international community via the UNMOVIC and UNSCOM weapons inspectors to fully classify, quarantine, and destroy all WMD stockpiles, he was in material violation of the terms of ceasefire and was subject to continuance of hostilities in order to resolve the problem via regime change rather than regime containment.

In hindsight, the intel we had was far from accurate, but it doesn’t mean the war was illegitimate from the very start.

That said, yeah, conservatives do need to be careful, I think, to keep the neocons in the back pocket as a handy element for electoral gain, but to be very wary of their potential impact on social and economic policymaking when it strains from traditional social conservatism and from free market-centric economic policies calling for lesser spending and lower taxes.

The Collegian — August 26, 2004 at 11:59 am

It’s already been brought up that there was a conservative reason for getting into the war. I’d also include the fact that Saddam Hussein was a sponsor of terrorism. His support for suicide bombers in Israel contributed to the instability of the region. While it is not shown he necessarily had ties to al Qaeda, that he has ties to terrorism in general is pretty well documented. (Read Deroy Murdock’s piece on NRO from several months ago.)

While these terrorist groups may not have been targeting us as al Qaeda did, they were contributing to a lousy Mid East situation. And frankly, we need a relatively stable, relatively friendly Middle East to secure our oil supplies. It was the reason we went to Kuwait in the 90s, and its a good reason for going back today.

So if the war to displace Saddam was needed for our economic security, then we need to stay and rebuild so that it doesn’t sink into another Afghanistan. If we had helped support Afghan’s following the Soviet withdrawal we could have helped prevent the rise of the Taliban, and their support for al Qaeda. I’m not necessarily saying democracy for all. I’d have been happy w/ a return to monarchy in Afghanistan, and giving Iraq back to Jordan. My only qualifier is that its stable, friendly, and not repressive.

BTW, since when does the nation one came from change how conservative a person can claim to be? I’m not saying Frum and other emigres are conservative, just that their nation of birth should not color our judgement of their positions. A conservative from England would still be a conservative.

The Collegian — August 26, 2004 at 12:01 pm

Murdock’s article at NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402110521.asp

The same article as it appeared in American Outlook: http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf

Timothy Carney — August 26, 2004 at 5:47 pm

1) I agree that there are good non-neocon reasons for the war.

2) I also think there are non-Straussian neocons and non-neocon Straussians (maybe me).

3) Here is the url from Frum’s pro-pro-choice president piece: http://aei.org/news/newsID.21087,filter.all/news_detail.asp

Richard — August 27, 2004 at 9:15 am

Whether or not the Collegian’s reasons for a war are valid (I think they are goofy), they are not conservative reasons for war. The conservative reason for war is to defend hearth and home. A stipend to the family of a suicide bomber in someone else’s country is vile, but not a conservative reason to take the standing army, the fleet and and air force around the world.

As is name is the collegian, one must assume he posts from ivy covered halls. If he is truly a conservative, one must assume he would be ashamed for another to bear his burden. I am confident the collegian, upon graduation will be off to the recruiter to honorably take his place in the line.

Fred Garvin — August 27, 2004 at 10:44 am

I think in Krauthammer’s case, you’re off base. He definitely has a larger strategic vision that is not just war as do-gooding. His advocacy of “social justice” is rhetorical — rather like the Carter administration’s embrace of human rights as a strategic cudgel against the Soviets. See Krauthammer’s piece in National Interest last year, “The Unipolar Moment Revisted” where he basically argues that (1) America has only one brief moment as a unipolar power, and (2) should use it to aggressively promote our friends and do in our enemies before the time comes when we are just another country in a sea of equally powerful states. You can disagree with that — but its not just war for th environment and social justice, it has an orientation toward national interest.

Adam Daifallah — August 27, 2004 at 5:27 pm

My good friend Tim’s piece reminds me of an old Lee Atwater quote: “There’s no such thing as a friend in politics — only a temporary ally.”

Tim and other anti-war conservatives want the Republican concensus on Iraq to fall apart. It might. If it does, it could trigger the end of “neocon” influence in the Republican Party — no doubt to the delight of Tim.

But Tim’s piece is laced with the subtle hints of a “neocon conspiracy” that have discredited the work of other writers. He is treating the “neocons” (I hate the term) as if they are some kind of homogeneous blob, all taking orders from a central politburo. They aren’t.

The right is as divided as ever on the big foreign policy questions. Some want more troops in Iraq, some don’t. Some want to trigger regime change Iran, some don’t. Syria, NKorea, Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, and many many more questions divide the right. There is no agreement on any of these issues.

To which I say: So what? Is this not politically healthy?

There were legitimate differences of opinion on Iraq. And no doubt the situation there isn’t as peachy as many had hoped or expected. But why try to purge those who don’t fit into Tim’s definition of a conservative? This piece represents the same kind of journalism that Tim criticizes Frum for doing in NR.

With the election set to be as close as it is, Republicans ought not be looking for ways to kick people out.

Timothy Carney — August 27, 2004 at 7:29 pm

Adam, as always is the peacemaker, trying to make us all play nice, which I appreciate. I am sorry if I came across as trying to purge anyone, which would certainly be hypocritical of me. I was noting a development that looks like a deliberate tack to the left by a few neocons, with Kristol explicitly flirting with the Democrats.

Also a warning: I am not a good enough writer to use subtext, and so please ignore “subtle hints” that you find laced in the text. I promise you, they weren’t intentional. I haven’t learned subtlety yet.

And on the “conspiracy” front: I know there is no strict ideology among the neocons, and I doubt they have secret planning meetings. But holding that aggressive interventionist foreign policy is the most important thing in politics sets these folks apart (just as stressing border control, opposing most war and being skeptical about free trade sets Buchanan and his brigades apart). But neither is a conspiracy or a club, I don’t think.

The Collegian — August 27, 2004 at 7:52 pm

If a conservative war is to defend hearth and home, I still see no problem with Iraq. He was harboring terrorists that did kill Americans and would kill more if they were given the means.

Incidentally, I wonder if Richard would qualify the Korean War as a conservative war. Certainly fighting Communism is a conservative objective, but a Communist Russia, like a Communist Vietnam, posed no threat to us at the time. The justification for getting involved would seem to be containing the spread of an ideology dangerous to hearth and home - Communism. Like Communism, terrorism is an ideology that should be contained from spreading, and that would seem to mean taking out sponsors of terror. Just a thought.

neocon hater — August 27, 2004 at 8:27 pm

Now it looks like the neocons brought an Israeli spy into the Pentagon. How much damage to they have to do before enough is enough? Time to toss them onto the ash heap of history.

The Collegian — August 27, 2004 at 8:41 pm

Yup guess they planted an Israeli spy to launch on some grand Zionist plot to involve the US in the expansion of Israel… well that or the fact that our counter intelligence has sucked for a long time (thanks to Bush 1, Clinton and the complacent Republicans) and Israel has made a point of always trying to get a spy into our government.

(On a side note my vote is we go back to the good ol days of hanging those who commit treason, for which this would seem a prime time to start)

neocon hater — August 27, 2004 at 8:58 pm

The “unpatriotic conservatives” have been vindicated on all counts. There is no other way for neocons to spin things.

Richard — August 29, 2004 at 11:54 am

“If a conservative war is to defend hearth and home, I still see no problem with Iraq. He was harboring terrorists that did kill Americans and would kill more if they were given the means.”

Name them

“Incidentally, I wonder if Richard would qualify the Korean War as a conservative war. Certainly fighting Communism is a conservative objective, but a Communist Russia, like a Communist Vietnam, posed no threat to us at the time. The justification for getting involved would seem to be containing the spread of an ideology dangerous to hearth and home - Communism. Like Communism, terrorism is an ideology that should be contained from spreading, and that would seem to mean taking out sponsors of terror. Just a thought.”

The Collegian has no concept of what conservatism is. Conservatism is not an ideology, but a reaction. The commies were goofy in calling their creed “scientific socialism” Maybe the collegian will enlighten us with the laws of conservatism.

Anyway, fighting communism at home would be conservative. Going around the world and building a mega state to slay the red monster was not.

Terrorism is a tactic not an ideology. If collegian is learning otherwise at the institution he is attending, I hope his parents are reading this and will demand their money back.

Also, a conservative cause, i.e. defending h&h would see the populace voluntarily take to the colors instead of having to be drafted as in Korea. Iraq is such a conservative cause that Collegian feels so strongly about that he could not abide the standing army facing the enemy alone and he is posting from his base between patrols in the Sunni Triangle.

The Collegian — August 29, 2004 at 9:51 pm

First Richard, for my parents to get their money back would require them to pay in the first place.

Second, Deroy Murdock lays out the terrorist groups in the articles I linked to. Perhaps you should have read them.

Third, I don’t understand how being a soldier changes the arguments made. If being on the frontlines lent validity to my case, than the fact that the overwhelming majority of soldiers support the war in Iraq would seem to weaken your view and support mine.

Fourth, a definition of conservatism is a long argument (as we’ve seen) and has always been in debate. To put it in one sentence I would explain it as a belief in limited government, individual rights, traditional values, and a foreign policy centered on defending American interests firsts, and American values only if they overlap.

Fifth, I concede terrorism is a tactic. However, it is a tactic used by an ideology (radical Islam) that should be contained just as we contained Communism, and for the same reasons.

Richard — August 29, 2004 at 10:34 pm

“Third, I don’t understand how being a soldier changes the arguments made. If being on the frontlines lent validity to my case, than the fact that the overwhelming majority of soldiers support the war in Iraq would seem to weaken your view and support mine.”

Sorry, being part of the Bill Bennet Brigade weakens your argument. The majority of soldiers are patriotic Americans, I’ll grant. Still, any standing army is somewhat mercenary. See how many soldiers would stay on if the benefit package were removed. In defending h&h, the benefit package is h&h are defended.

If you really are a conservative, you would not want someone taking your place in the line.

To be honest, I do not know what or who Mr. Murdock is channeling, but the 911 commission disagreed with him.

“To put it in one sentence I would explain it as a belief in limited government, individual rights, traditional values, and a foreign policy centered on defending American interests firsts, and American values only if they overlap. “

Limited gov. and our post cold war adventures are a joke.

As to AmInterests and AmValues. I am sure we disagree.

I am happy for your parents as I expect they are my age and will need every cent they can lay their hands on according to Mr. Greenspan. If you yourself have paid, well there may be a lawyer who thinks he can do something on a contingency basis as I think you have a case. I f you are a scholarship student, well, I can’t help you.

“Fifth, I concede terrorism is a tactic. However, it is a tactic used by an ideology (radical Islam) that should be contained just as we contained Communism, and for the same reasons.”

I am no fan of Islam, but we do want to grab the oil and I’d guess they just don’t think it is cricket. I would still be ashamed of the tactic even if W could get me $.85 gasoline, but I’d probably accept it. The problem is we are losing this one, because we can’t patrol all of the Middle East and even though you use the Royal We in your post, you don’t want to be part of the anti-terrorist crusade and neither do 99% of your countrymen and women.

As to defeating the Arab Revolt, I’d suggest you read T.E.Lawrence “Seven Pillars of Wisdom” rather than old Deroy who probably has not been too far east of a computer screen. The A-rabs probably ain’t gonna come up with any nanotech breakthroughs anytime soon, but they are going to defeat us unless we go over to a very large and ruthless mercenary force and throw all our conservative values overboard.

The Collegian — August 29, 2004 at 10:56 pm

The 9/11 Commission stated that alQaeda and Iraq communicated, but did not collaborate. I am willing to trust the report, but it doesn’t actually negate most of Murdock’s reporting. He documents Saddam’s support for groups such as Abu Nidal, the Palestine Liberation Front, and others.

While some argue that we should concentrate exclusively on al Qaeda that would be a dangerous policy. While we should devote much of our resources to that threat, we need to be mindful that there are other groups out there who want to kill and us and make sure we limit them. Its worth pointing out the Commission blamed Clinton/Bush of not having been mindful of al Qaeda prior to 9/11.

This doesn’t mean we should invade everyone, however. I actually prefer the Reagan-esque method of funding proxies. In his day it was the mujaheedin and the Contras. I think we should have provided support for the Kurds in the 90s. Today I think we should provide support to democratic activists in Iran and other locales. Invading them would set back the cause of democracy.

(Aside: The pursuit of democracy is not worthwhile for democracy’s sake, but because democracies are generally unwilling to attack other democracies, and this would safeguard the US)

(Aside #2: Check out Carney’s new article on NRO for more GOP squishing, http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/carney200408271245.asp)

wicked conservative — August 30, 2004 at 12:39 am

Radical Islam was and is contained to the mideast. The problem is our intervention in the mideast. 911 was blowback.

Richard — August 30, 2004 at 9:45 am

Well, I wasted time checking out Mr. Murdock’s articles. Other than pointing out that it is well past its shelf life, anyone who has to rely on the ridiculous Laurie Mylroie has a credibility problem. Sadly, I shall refer you to a lefty site that counters his assertions in detail: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm.

“we need to be mindful that there are other groups out there who want to kill and us and make sure we limit them.”

It is kind of a chicken/egg situation. Do we go after them because they are after us or are they after us because we are after them.

I will take it you have conceded my other pointsas you have ignored them.

The Collegian — August 30, 2004 at 10:39 am

Actually I don’t concede your other points, but find them rather ridiculous. Our army is not mercenary in nature because it is beholden to a given state rather than whichever state pays the most. That we need to give them benefits is simply an exchange for a service rendered. In this case its providing for the national defense. As conservatives we understand jobs require compensation.

As to the oil argument, if this was about oil we’d have simply lifted sanctions. Its alot easier, a lot less riskier for Bush politically, and would provide more oil quicker.

As to the idea we can’t beat radical Islam by fighting I would say our strategy should be two fold. Defeating those terrorists that already exist through killing them and draining away their support while instituting policies that encourage the rise of moderate Islam.

As to the book, can’t comment, haven’t read it.

As to W.C.’s argument that radical Islam is contained to the Middle East, explain the fact that Jose Padilla and John Lindh were both radical Muslims and both from the US. And the presence of radical Mosques here, in Britain and on the Continent.

You clearly read the Murdock article w/ blinders, because the parts that I cited were not refuted in Laurie Mylroie’s article. Mylroie discusses Salman Pak and the WMD’s plus their carrier vehicles, things which I never mentioned and freely concede are unproven and likely false.

Richard — August 30, 2004 at 2:21 pm

“Our army is not mercenary in nature because it is beholden to a given state rather than whichever state pays the most. That we need to give them benefits is simply an exchange for a service rendered. In this case its providing for the national defense. As conservatives we understand jobs require compensation.”

Actually, it is national offense, not defense that our army is providing. It is not defending h&h and the biggest backers of the adventure, including you, are safe and sound.

“Defeating those terrorists that already exist through killing them and draining away their support”

So far, they’ve got to kill a few of ours and build up some support.

” while instituting policies that encourage the rise of moderate Islam.”

Delusional.

“As to the oil argument, if this was about oil we’d have simply lifted sanctions. Its alot easier, a lot less riskier for Bush politically, and would provide more oil quicker.”

Not to mention intelligent.

The Collegian — August 30, 2004 at 10:02 pm

I don’t debate lifting sanctions would’ve made more sense. Kofi may not have liked his son’s lost revenue, and that would be an added bonus.

You seem not to debate that ours is not a mercenary army, instead trying to change the subject to offense vs. defense. So you agree w/ me on this one?

There are policies that would encourage the rise of moderate islam. Supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state defying terrorism. Lending moral support to democratic activists in Iran. Continuing to push teh EU to support the more secular Turkey.

And oh yeah, we’ve killed and captured quite a few of theirs too.

Richard — August 31, 2004 at 12:15 am

“You seem not to debate that ours is not a mercenary army, instead trying to change the subject to offense vs. defense. So you agree w/ me on this one?”

Say what?

“There are policies that would encourage the rise of moderate islam. Supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state defying terrorism. Lending moral support to democratic activists in Iran. Continuing to push teh EU to support the more secular Turkey.”

I would rather believe something more rational, like I have a good chance, against all evidence, of winning a multi state lottery.

Think about it. Democratic activists in Iran came about with no help from us and how our support will make them look as anything but quislings.

“And oh yeah, we’ve killed and captured quite a few of theirs too.”

The above reminds me of a conversation between a NVA general (maybe Giap) and an American general. The American bragged how the US was never defeated in the field and won all the battles. The NVA man replied that that was true but irrelevant.

Anyway, stop saying “we.” You ain’t going anywhere there is not a Starbucks.

The Collegian — September 1, 2004 at 12:43 am

Your statement seems to be that there is no policy that will affect the positive or negative development of the Islamic world. I think it would be good to back this statement up with reasoning. I’d argue your Iran statement is moot because the development of a reform movement w/o American support isn’t an argument that American support can’t help a movement.

That we have killed or captured some terrorists is relevant if we are discussing terrorism. And I would feel free to use the “we” because its my tax payer dollars that provide the munitions, etc. for the soldiers. W/o the taxes of Americans (the “we”) it would be impossible.

And you never did point that whether an army is on the offensive or defensive is a non factor in whether it is “mercenary”.

Richard — September 1, 2004 at 11:03 am

“Your statement seems to be that there is no policy that will affect the positive or negative development of the Islamic world. I think it would be good to back this statement up with reasoning. I’d argue your Iran statement is moot because the development of a reform movement w/o American support isn’t an argument that American support can’t help a movement.”

Let’s see what’s been tried: Crusades, The Inquisition, missionaries, imperialism, Colonialism. Of course, you have something new and when they start listening to rap, why they are just going to jump at the chance to emulate us. Kindly forgive me if I don’t hold my breath. Actually, as you are the person proposing this brilliant scheme, the burden of proof is on you. So far there has been a dire dearth of “reasoning” on your part.

“That we have killed or captured some terrorists is relevant if we are discussing terrorism. And I would feel free to use the “we” because its my tax payer dollars that provide the munitions, etc. for the soldiers. W/o the taxes of Americans (the “we”) it would be impossible.”

Adam Smith assessed your attitude”

“In great empires the people who live in the capital, and in the provinces remote from the scene of action, feel, many of them, scarce any inconveniency from the war; but enjoy, at their ease, the amusement of reading in the newspapers the exploits of their own fleets and armies. To them this amusement compensates the small difference between the taxes which they pay on account of the war, and those which they had been accustomed to pay in time of peace. They are commonly dissatisfied with the return of peace, which puts an end to their amusement, and to a thousand visionary hopes of conquest and national glory from a longer continuance of the war.”

Book V, Chapter 3 of The Wealth of Nations

As I pointed out before, conservative war is for hearth and home, which all want to defend. If you really believed, you would fight. You do not dare to share the dirt and sand and maybe the grave of he who serves. Using that “we” because you are subject to the withholding tax is at best fatuous, at worst, obscene.

“And you never did point that whether an army is on the offensive or defensive is a non factor in whether it is “mercenary”.”

Sorry you did not get it. My point is we don’t have National Defense. Our military is geared to going overseas and grabbing territory. There is little in it for defending the country. All that money and offensive weaponry meant nothing when it came to 911. Therefore, we have a National Offense and not a National Defense. The use of mercenaries is a hallmark of empires. Oh, and to supplement our semi mercenary official army, we are employing numerous full mercenary troopers. Those men strung up in Falluja. They called them “contractors” on the news, they were mercenaries. We have hired a South African outfit to patrol the oil pipelines (fat lot of good it is doing). Our casualty statistics would be a lot higher without them. Of course, our using Hessians is another conservative value we are defending.

The Collegian — September 1, 2004 at 1:26 pm

Ah, so now our army is “semi-mercenary” when before you called it “mercenary”?

I don’t dispute that contractors are mercs, nor have I ever. My point is that our army is not mercenary, a belief you disagree with.

As to the Adam Smith quote I don’t debate its veracity. It doesn’t negate the use of the “we” though. If for example, I gave a gun to my brother and then sent him half way around the world to kill a man, I would still say “we” killed the man. I may have been miles away, but I’m still culpable for having provided the means. (Mind you, if he then decided to go torture some people I would not bear culpability as I did not intend for him to do that nor expect him to do that.)

The policies you quote cannot be compared to today for a number of reasons: 1. All were intended to subjugate either to a religion or for coerced trade. I do not propose doing either. 2. All were implemented under threat of force.

While I won’t claim to have all the answers (I am, after all, still in college) I am optimistic that there are ways by which we can support directly or indirectly those trying to get out from under the thumb of tyranny. Reagan gave direct support to freedom fighters in the Contras, but he also lent moral support to the Solidarity movement.

Richard — September 1, 2004 at 6:55 pm

“Ah, so now our army is “semi-mercenary” when before you called it “mercenary”? “

A little attention to detail would help here. This is what I wrote:

“Still, any standing army is somewhat mercenary”

Note the somewhat modifying mercenary. When I was young we had nuns beating us up to diagram sentences. I hated them, but I can see where young people would benefit from it.

“I don’t dispute that contractors are mercs, nor have I ever. My point is that our army is not mercenary, a belief you disagree with.”

Disagree with what I wrote instead of making it up. I made the point about the actual hiring of the mercenaries to find out if you think wholesale employing of them to hold onto Iraq is a conservative value consistent with your belief in ” limited government, individual rights, traditional values, and a foreign policy centered on defending American interests firsts, and American values only if they overlap.”

You did not answer so I must assume that the hiring of mercenaries is a conservative value in Collegian world..

“As to the Adam Smith quote I don’t debate its veracity. It doesn’t negate the use of the “we” though. If for example, I gave a gun to my brother and then sent him half way around the world to kill a man, I would still say “we” killed the man. I may have been miles away, but I’m still culpable for having provided the means. (Mind you, if he then decided to go torture some people I would not bear culpability as I did not intend for him to do that nor expect him to do that.)”

Man you are not thinking straight here. If you gave a gun to your bro and sent him next door to kill a man, you would be an accomplice to murder. If you gave him a gun and he went next door to torture someone when he said he only wanted to kill the guy, you would be an accomplice to torture and probably be up on a manslaughter rap as the DA would probably die laughing when you claimed to be innoncent because you only gave the gun to kill not torture.

Be sure and send your brother to Sweden, the jails are nicer there and you will wish to take that into consideration when they extradite you. Don’t send him to NYC. You would not survive one hour at Rikers.

Anyway, thanks for the insight into your thought process. Let me just point out that the example above is how you would share guilt. What I find vile is that for what little in taxes you pay, you wish to share honor that you have no right to. Deep down, you know it is true. As everyone has a core of honesty as George Orwell wrote about when he was sucking up to the wife of the headmaster in “Such Such Were the Joys.” You know what you wrote above is crap, you just can’t admit you were wrong.

By the way, do you take responsibility for all the innocent Iraqis “we” have killed?

“The policies you quote cannot be compared to today for a number of reasons: 1. All were intended to subjugate either to a religion or for coerced trade. I do not propose doing either. 2. All were implemented under threat of force.”

As to 1, we’ve gone into the oil thing before (coerced trade), and yeah it ain’t smart, but stupid is what my government does.

As to 2, ah, the threat of force was pervasive from the beginning of the Irag adventure. It still is, even though it is not working so well and we have to hope for some more Sistanis to pull chestnuts out of the fire.

“While I won’t claim to have all the answers (I am, after all, still in college) I am optimistic that there are ways by which we can support directly or indirectly those trying to get out from under the thumb of tyranny. Reagan gave direct support to freedom fighters in the Contras, but he also lent moral support to the Solidarity movement.”

Well, Mr. Limited Government, a crusade to free the world is the attempt to be the world’s policeman. You really ought to think about those conservative values you hold. The Weakly Standard version of “National Greatness” is not conservative.