The Iraq war has created a false dichotomy. The media has manufactured the perception, and thus influenced the reality, that conservative=pro-war and liberal=anti-war. But no conservative principles buttress the idea of nation building, policing distant parts of the globe, and militarily evangelizing the world for democracy. You would not know this from listening to talk radio, perusing op-ed columns, or watching cable news, but a multitude of important conservative voices are critical of, and some in fact oppose, the Iraq war. Additionally, one could conjure up a list of similarly well-known liberals--Christopher Hitchens, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton--who supported the invasion. I've compiled a diverse list of conservatives--neoconservatives and theoconservatives, libertarians and Republicans, but mostly just plain-old conservatives--who are critics of the Iraq War. They have rebelled against the simplistic script the media has produced that forces conservatives to play the role of the jingoes, and liberals the role of the pacificists. It's a lot more complicated than that. On what grounds would a conservative oppose or criticize the Iraq venture? Read carefully....

1. "What's really killed the Republican Party isn't spending, it's Iraq. As it happens, I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression."
--Milton Friedman, The Romance of Economics, Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2006

2. "But it is clear to me now that things are not working out well in Iraq. Despite the incredible confidence, bravery and sacrifice of our men and women on the ground there, Iraq is still a violent, largely out of control nation. We may be making more terrorists than we destroy. The word 'quagmire' comes sadly to mind."
--Ben Stein, What Ben Stein Thinks Bush Should Do, CBS.com, October 29, 2006

3. "With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."
--William F. Buckley, National Review Founder to Leave Stage, New York Times, June 29, 2004

4. "As President Bush marched the country to war with Iraq, even some voices on the Right warned that this was a fool's errand. I dismissed them angrily. I thought them unpatriotic. But almost four years later, I see that I was the fool. In Iraq, this Republican President for whom I voted twice has shamed our country with weakness and incompetence, and the consequences of his failure will be far, far worse than anything Jimmy Carter did."
--Rod Dreher, Bush, Iraq Lead a Conservative to Question, National Public Radio, January 11, 2007

5. "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it."
--Tucker Carlson, Newly Dovish, Tucker Carlson Goes Public, New York Observer, May 16, 2004

6. "I thought there was an arrogance about this war, and a belief flowing from self-righteousness and misdirected idealism, which was bound to end in disaster. I thought of my own country at the end of the nineteenth century and embarking on the Boer War and ending essentially its imperial power by its overweening folly. And I thought, not merely wrong but a mistake. And nothing, absolutely nothing that has happened since--and I have been to Iraq twice since that war took place--has convinced me in any way that I was wrong. This was an idealist's war. It was an idealist's war supported by idealists for the best of reasons. And it fulfilled my belief that there is nothing in this world more terrifying than somebody who thinks that he is right."
--Peter Hitchens, Debate: Hitchens v. Hitchens, April 3, 2008

7. "The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, okay? Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I would like to have better information.... I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive."
--General Norman Schwarzkopf, Desert Caution, The Washington Post, January 28, 2003

8. "Despite the myriad voices in the press insisting, 'Iraq is not a Vietnam!' the indisputable fact is that, if you consider the passions and principles applied there, it really IS another Vietnam. Among the causes for the war are obscurantist theories about foreign threats that have little basis in reality; civilians at the top who play with the soldiers they have never been; and the underlying lies that give credence to special interests (the Bay of Tonkin pretense in Vietnam, the supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq)."
--Georgie Anne Geyer, Vietnam and Iraq Have More Similarities Than Differences, November 10, 2003

9. "We didn't have a casus belli going in, and that was disturbing to me. Casus belli means that this guy is a threat to our national security, to our vital national interests, or to American lives. I just didn't see that that was the case. We had Afghanistan happening, and Osama bin Laden is a fellow who needs to meet God sooner or later--preferably with a U.S. bullet in his head--and that was a more pressing matter to me at that time."
--Tom Clancy, Charlie Rose Show, May 25, 2005

10. "The Pope has very clearly expressed his thoughts, not only as the thoughts of an individual, but as the thoughts of a man of conscience occupying the highest functions in the Catholic Church. Of course, he has not imposed this position as a doctrine of the Church, but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by the faith. This judgment of the Holy Father is convincing from a rational point of view also: reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist. First of all it was clear from the very beginning that proportion between the possible positive consequences and the sure negative effect of the conflict was not guaranteed. On the contrary, it seems clear that the negative consequences will be greater than anything positive that might be obtained. Without considering then that we must begin asking ourselves whether as things stand, with new weapons that cause destruction that goes well beyond the groups involved in the fight, it is still licit to allow that a 'just war' might exist."
--Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), The Catechism in a Post Christian World, April 2003

11. "My fault was in not grasping the scale of the administration's multiculturalist ambitions. (Of which, to be fair to them, they had given plenty of hints, and even one or two frank declarations of intent.) George W. Bush believes that, to borrow and adjust a line from the colonel in Full Metal Jacket: 'Inside every Middle East Muslim there is an American trying to get out.' The effort to stabilize Iraq, and the reluctance to just leave the Iraqis to fight each other among the rubble, followed inevitably from that belief, which is, according to me, a false belief. I see all that now. I didn't see it then. I am sorry."
--John Derbyshire, Apologizing for Iraq, NRO, June 12, 2006

12. "I for one would not have supported the war if I thought that its principal justification was the liberation of the Iraqi people, which is what the White House now says was its primary mission. Our military exists to defend the nation, not be the world's policeman."
--Bruce Bartlett, My Misgivings, Townhall.com, April 21, 2004

13. "Of all of the different views that have now come to be associated with neo-conservatives, the strangest one to me was the confidence that the US could transform Iraq into a Western-style democracy and go on from there to democratise the broader Middle East. It struck me as strange precisely because these same neo-conservatives had spent much of the past generation warning about the dangers of ambitious social engineering and how social planners could never control behaviour or deal with unanticipated consequences. If the US cannot eliminate poverty or raise test scores in Washington, DC, how in the world does it expect to bring democracy to a part of the world that has stubbornly resisted it and is virulently anti-American to boot?"
--Francis Fukuyama, Shattered Illusions, The Australian, July 16, 2004

14. ''I don't believe that America will justifiably make an unprovoked attack on another nation. It would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation.... My own view would be to let [Saddam Hussein] bluster, let him rant and rave all he wants and let that be a matter between he and his own country. As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him.''
--Majority Leader Dick Armey, Iraq Is Defiant as GOP Leader Opposes Attack, New York Times, August 9, 2002

15. "The war on Iraq is a dangerous diversion from the war on al-Qaida. Indeed, an Iraq invasion is likely to inspire retaliatory terrorism from Islamists everywhere. I would prefer to see America's resources--money, manpower, intelligence services, military might--devoted to crushing the al-Qaida infrastructure, tracking down its operatives and protecting the American homeland from terror assault. Our current anti-terror efforts are pathetically inadequate, as I fear we shall soon see."
--Heather MacDonald, Who's for War, Who's Against It, and Why, Slate, February 19, 2003

16. "For some, the promotion of democracy promises an easy resolution to the many difficult problems we face, a guiding light on a dimly seen horizon. But I believe that great caution is warranted here. Without strong evidence to the contrary, we should not readily believe that, without an enduring American presence, democracy can be so easily implanted and nourished in societies where history and experience suggest it is quite alien. It may, in fact, constitute an uncontrollable experiment with an outcome akin to that faced by the Sorcerer's Apprentice."
--Rep. Henry Hyde, The Perils of the Golden Theory, February 26, 2006

17. "President Bush has adopted and fostered an ideologically charged missionary spirit that bears a striking resemblance to that of the Jacobins who led the French Revolution. The principles of 'freedom and democracy' are to be promoted around the world by virtuous American power. The French Jacobins, too, saw themselves as virtuous champions of universal principles, 'freedom' and popular rule prominent among them."
--Professor Claes Ryn, A Jacobin in Chief, The American Conservative, April 11, 2005

18. "Although the Constitution endows the legislative branch with the sole authority to declare war, the president did not consult Congress before announcing his new policy. He promulgated the Bush Doctrine by fiat. Then he acted on it. In 2003, Saddam Hussein posed no immediate threat to the United States; arguing that he might one day do so, the administration depicted the invasion of Iraq as an act of anticipatory self-defense. To their everlasting shame, a majority of members in both the House and the Senate went along, passing a resolution that 'authorized' the president to do what he was clearly intent on doing anyway."
--Professor Andrew Bacevich, Rescinding the Bush Doctrine, Boston Globe, March 1, 2007

19. "What's human sacrifice if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?"
--Mel Gibson, Mel Gibson Criticizes Iraq War at Film Fest, AP, September 25, 2006

20. "Although the argument that the United Nations cannot dictate to us what is in our best interest is correct, and we do have a right to pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it's ironic that we're making this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people or governments throughout the world support. But the argument for unilateralism and national sovereignty cannot be made for the purpose of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. That doesn't make any sense. If one wants to enforce UN Security Council resolutions, that authority can only come from the United Nations itself. We end up with the worst of both worlds: hated for our unilateralism, but still lending credibility to the UN. The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to our security, that authority must come from the U.S. Congress."
--Rep. Ron Paul, Another United Nations War?, February 26, 2003

21. "[Saddam Hussein] is a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4,500 wounded--some of them terribly-- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and our reputation and our image in the world, particularly in that region, shattered."
--General Anthony Zinni, Author Tom Clancy Criticizes Iraq War, AP, May 24, 2004

22. "The United States intends to invade and occupy a nation that has not attacked us, to reshape its society, rebuild its government, and redirect its foreign policy to reflect American ideals and serve American interests. Imperialism, pure and simple. Though President Bush declares our aims to be altruistic--liberation of the people of Iraq from the grip of a brutal dictator--this war is already seen in Arab eyes as a war of American empire."
--Patrick J. Buchanan, After Baghdad, Where Do We Go?, March 3, 2003

23. "And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than twelve years of embargo? War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations Organization and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations."
--Pope John Paul II, Address of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to the Diplomatic Corps, January 13, 2003

24. "We've got to be looking at priorities here. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have one thing in common, and that is they both hate the United States. Otherwise, they have very little in common. As a matter of fact, my guess is, if it weren't for the United States, Osama bin Laden would turn on Saddam Hussein. Why? Because Saddam Hussein is the head of a Ba'athist party--a secular, socialist party. He is anathema to the kind of world that Osama bin Laden wants to reinstall. So he's part of the problem; he's not part of the solution. That doesn't mean they can't cooperate, and might not cooperate. But what I'm saying is we need to get our priorities straight, and we've got them straight right now. We're going after number one target."
--Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, PBS Interview, October 2001

25. "Now America is engaged in a great exercise in nation-building. America invaded Iraq to disarm a rogue regime thought to be accumulating weapons of mass destruction. After nine months of postwar searching, no such weapons have as yet been found. The appropriate reaction to this is dismay, and perhaps indignation, about intelligence failures--failures that also afflicted the previous American administration and numerous foreign governments. Instead, Washington's reaction is Wilsonian. It is: Never mind the weapons of mass destruction; a sufficient justification for the war was Iraq's noncompliance with various U.N. resolutions. So a conservative American administration says that war was justified by the need--the opportunity--to strengthen the U.N., a.k.a. the 'international community,' as the arbiter of international behavior. Woodrow Wilson lives."
--George Will, Can We Make Iraq Democratic, City Journal, Winter 2004

It's interesting that only a few of these quotes state that the orator was against the war from the beginning. More are specifying or framing their opinion as hindsight.

I think that if people are honest with themselves, most who currently don’t think the war was a good idea might look back to when the nation was caught up in the fervor of post 9/11 country love and admit that a majority thought that somebody had to pay for the outrage of the attacks.

Our hasty foray into Iraq was more a result of hyperactive patriotism than it was making pragmatic decisions based on concrete reasons to invade. In hindsight.

I agree with asdf. The post-9/11 political fervor definitely fueled the decision to go to war. It was immensely popular for many months. This is not to excuse the Prez, but it sure didn't encourage cool deliberation.

This is a grand old list.
John McCain is running for 4 more years on the Bush policies. He ain't a liberal. Just because there are fractures on the right doesn't mean this isn't a (Republican)Conservative war. Even these guys mentioned (Carlson, Buchanon etc) will defend the Bush policy then later add a qualifier. Let's face it - politics has poisoned any possible intelligent discussion.

It's not surprising that there is growing conservative critique of the war, but many of these conservatives were all for the war at the time -- Armey, Dreher, Derbyshire, etc. They are trying to salvage their reputation by suggesting that the war has been conducted poorly, or that we shouldn't engage in nation-building, or that trying to create a democratic Iraq is a chimera. But what did these people think we would do after we overthrow Saddam? Just pack up and leave?

I was against the war in Iraq in 2002 when everyone was declaring that Iraq's WMD threatened this country -- yawn. The bottom line is that if you supported the war in 2002 or early 2003 you were not acting as a conservative but either as a Republican partisan, Bush Cultist, or a toady too afraid to buck the your party's line.

People seem not to understand that there isn't a "conservative" movement that is indepedent of the Republican Party, and there is virtually no difference in perspective between a Republican strategist and the noise of talk-radio.

RC,

Those on the right (myself included) supported the war. In that sense, it is a "conservative war". Conservatives are guilty for promulgating it and supporting it. But in another sense, it is not a conservative war. That is, the War in Iraq is not representative of conservative values or of a conservative way of thinking about international affairs. That conservatives supported the Iraq War represents a case of them placing party loyalty above conservative principles. That is the point Dan was trying to make, I think.

Ben yrr close, we war mongers believe the best defence is a great offence, hence no bombs on ny. in 7 yrs.

And yet more American lives have been lost by far than were lost on 9/11.

This was not a conservative war, but it was supported by a lot of conservatives (and liberals) who have since regained their senses. Why the blank out?

I think conservatives have a weakness (which I share) of contrariness, and thus trying to be the opposite of their political enemies, leftists -- who are (at least in words, though not always in ideology or in fact) peaceniks, multilateralist, dialogue-utopians, quick to blame America, to defend those who hate us, and to always downplay threats to us or the significance of American injury.

But virtue is in the mean, not at the other extreme.

Well, I did live through the Carter years and I can tell you first hand that it $ucked! Life in general is much much better these days and although I won't necessarily attribute that fact to our current WH resident, as things have gotten progressively better since Reagan, the reality is that Carter f'ed a lot of things up.

To a degree, I suppose we can thank Carter for being so incompetent across the board as it woke people up to how a bad President can negatively impact an economy, foreign policy and overall national security.

I really hope we don't have to go through an Obama (gulp!) Presidency to re-learn those lessons.

Oops. Too early. Wrong post for this topic.

I find it interesting that, except for the comments by Hitchens and Dreher, all of these quotes are dated prior to 2007. I wonder what these folks would say now, in June 2008? Much progress has been made in Iraq in the last two years. Debating the decision to invade Iraq is pointless now. We are there. Let's finish the job.

Despite all the trouble, I still think the war was worth it

1 - Saddam hated us and wanted revenge
2 - The Sanctions were crumbling
3 - The US was viewed as immorally causing the deaths of millions of Iraqis due to the sanctions
4 - After we disrupted the Terrorist networks in Afghanistan some of them were headed to Iraq, and Iraq welcomed them
5 - He had the capiblity of reviving his weapons programs once the sanctions were sufficiently weakened
6 - We'd be facing an Iraq - Iran nuclear arms race and we would have been constrained to being based in Turkey and Saudia Arabia which are becoming increasing hostile to us anyway.

so in hindsight it's easy to forget all of that

TPB: Finish what job? Getting rid of WMD?

Vince P: Even if we grant all six claims, I don't see how any of that amounts to a cause for war.

Despite all the trouble, I still think the war was worth it –
What????

1 - Saddam hated us and wanted revenge
– Only him, since when is that a reason for war?

2 - The Sanctions were crumbling
– So go to war?

3 - The US was viewed as immorally causing the deaths of millions of Iraqis due to the sanctions
– by Whom? Anyone that doesn’t already hate us?

4 - After we disrupted the Terrorist networks in Afghanistan some of them were headed to Iraq, and Iraq welcomed them
– Is this a theory or have you been talking to Dick Chenny ?

5 - He had the capability of reviving his weapons programs once the sanctions were sufficiently weakened
– Another extrapolation far short of a reason for a billion $ per month war.

6 - We'd be facing an Iraq - Iran nuclear arms race and we would have been constrained to being based in Turkey and Saudia Arabia which are becoming increasing hostile to us anyway.
- You surely drank the kool-aid on this one.

We are a severely weakened nation on many levels (economically, militarily and diplomatically) because of this Bush/Chenny Iraq folly.

Dan I respect Milton Freidman, Bill Buckley, George Will, and Ben Stein TREMENDOUSLY. To the extent that they oppose the invasion of Iraq, I think they're wrong. Even the SMARTEST people can come to some hair-brained conclusions for a multitude of reasons. As the author of "Intellectual Morons" you are acutely aware of this. :-)

I CERTAINLY consider myself a staunch Conservative, and at the same time I support the war in Iraq. If 9-11-01 taught us nothing else, it taught us that waiting around for our enemies to strike us is suicidally stupid. The very thought that a Saddam Hussein with CBR weapons was NOT a threat to our national interests/security was absurd. And remember that WAS the international intel consensus at the time.

The very reason we are even discussing the merits of the Bush Doctrine is because it's worked so damned well! How ironic that we should be debating the merits of the very policy which has kept us safe from a bunch of 7th century savages.

"...militarily evangelizing the world for democracy. You would not know this from listening to talk radio, perusing op-ed columns, or watching cable news, but a multitude of important conservative voices are critical of, and some in fact oppose, the Iraq war."

Inserting representative government into post war Japan and Germany worked PERFECTLY. It was a long, tough slog, but it was worth it. We are truly turning the corner in Iraq too. Even if the democracy ends up failing and the Arabs install a strong-man dictator, I want his government to DREAD the thought of saber-rattling against America or her interests. We should maintain a base in southern Iraq also, like we have in Germany and Japan.

I'm aware that there's a long tradition in the Conservative movement that frowns on foreign intervention. In this case they're just wrong. I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've argued on other blogs-FrontPage Magazine for one-with people who called themselves "real conservatives" who sounded more like deranged Bush haters. Strangely enough, many of those same "conservatives" didn't like his tax cuts either, or thought his only worthy accomplishments happened when he reached across the aisle to cooperate with the Dems. Hmmm.

IMHO Bush's BIGGEST failings are growing the size and scope of the government, and being a "moderate" and letting the leadership of the party go to liberals like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mel Martinez and the like. Not only did he let this happen, he encouraged it! The ascendency of the liberal McCain has left me nauseous and worried for the Conservative movement. As it stands, we don't have a party.

Any suggestions?

Morgan

asdf had a very interesting post:

"It's interesting that only a few of these quotes state that the orator was against the war from the beginning. More are specifying or framing their opinion as hindsight.

I think that if people are honest with themselves, most who currently don’t think the war was a good idea might look back to when the nation was caught up in the fervor of post 9/11 country love and admit that a majority thought that somebody had to pay for the outrage of the attacks.

Our hasty foray into Iraq was more a result of hyperactive patriotism than it was making pragmatic decisions based on concrete reasons to invade. In hindsight."

I thought the first paragraph was profound and insightful. There may in fact be some opportunism involved.
I disagree with the last paragraph totally. The run up to the resumption of hostilities in Iraq is well documented and completely justifiable.

Morgan

>We are a severely weakened nation on many levels (economically, militarily and diplomatically) because of this Bush/Chenny Iraq folly.

Wrong.

We are weakened because the Democrats made a calculation to smear our nation and Bush. If there had been unity then our enemies would not view us as weak as they do now.

Vince: We aren't weakened because of some superficial PR problem that we could blame on the Democrats. We are weakened because we are involved in an unwinnable war without end in sight, whose justification was a falshood, and which is dragging on us economically and militarily. This naturally makes us look incredibly stupid (if not evil).

Vince wrote:
"Wrong.

We are weakened because the Democrats made a calculation to smear our nation and Bush. If there had been unity then our enemies would not view us as weak as they do now."

EXACTLY Vince, BRAVO! David Horowitz wrote a painstakingly researched book, "Party Of Defeat" which goes step by step through the Democrats undermining of our War on Terror. Yes, that INCLUDES the Afghan front. G-d only knows how much further along we would have been if the Dems had left politics at the water's edge.

xantippe:

Finish what job? I suggest that we finish the job of helping the Iraqis set up a stable government that functions in some type of democratic process (if that's possible), and rebuild what we can. How can it be a bad thing to foster good relations with Iraq? Was that the declared initial intent of the war? No. No doubt if there were WMD's, we'd have found those by now. But I didn't see the evidence to justify the war. Neither did you, probably. But we cannot just say now that it was a monumental, unjustified mistake and just pack up. Not yet. That's like cleaning out your garage. You just can't pile all the crap in the middle of the floor and leave. We have to make the best of a bad, incredibly expensive situation, and find a way to clean the garage before we go home.

TPB,

Obviously you are not familiar with the idea of the irrelevance of sunk costs. It's economics 101 -- look it up.

right on vince, dems and and the hide behind our border crowd, have undermined this war from day one. bush has run this war at a pc level. but he has to, cause the dems werenippin at his arse from the day he took office.

To Eric Wilds:

This is more than just a sunk cost. You just can't say that this whole thing was just a colossial strain on the U.S. economy, so let's just cut our losses and be done with it. This isn't some bad stock that you just keep hanging onto hoping that it will finally turn around. This war is going to impact the entire Middle East for decades to come. For good or bad, we are in this thing, and it must be seen through. I believe that the only purpose criticism of this war serves is so future administrations can learn from the many mistakes that have been made by the Bush administration.

If you were to ask me to define what I mean by "seen through," I'm not sure I could give you an answer; I don't know. Hopefully, people smarter than I am are working on an exit strategy. All I know is that criticizing the farmer for forgetting to close the barn door doesn't help him get the horses back into the barn.

There is this rhetoric about "seeing the thing through," "getting the job done," "finishing what we start," etc etc. What does that mean?

You cannot talk like that without articulating a reasonable, attainable goal, success at which would cause us to pack up. Otherwise, they are empty metaphors, excuses to blankout. So what is that goal? I don't think there is one that we have not already accomplished.

TPB,

"This is more than just a sunk cost."

Perhaps there is, but your argument illustrated that the concept is foreign to you. I encourage you to look it up and then apply it.

"You just can't say that this whole thing was just a colossial strain on the U.S. economy, so let's just cut our losses and be done with it."

That this war is a colossal strain on the U.S. economy is a criticism, but not the only criticism. We could cite others: it's an unjust war; it's killing thousands of innocents on both sides; it's eroding our standing in the world; it's established a bad precedent; it arrogates too much power to the executive; it prevents us from confronting other domestic issues (spending, taxes, deficits) etc.

"For good or bad, we are in this thing, and it must be seen through."

At least you admit you want to stay in Iraq for a cause you cannot define, which shows that the supporters of the war even acknowledge the war's meaningless.

However, if we are to be honest, when most people exhort us to stay in Iraq until the "job is done," or until "we win," they are thinking politically, not strategically. Simply, if we were to leave Iraq now it would be obvious that the war was a costly and pointless failure and therefore all those who supported the war will have this on their resume forever. And who wants that? This is about trying to save face for those foolish enough to support the war.

Naturally, I don't think this is a just cause. But I understand your dilemma.

Eric if you tried REALLY hard, you couldn't be MORE wrong! When I'm done with work tonight I'll explain in detail the fallacy of your thinking. I was over there in 90 & 91 and WE KNEW WE'D BE BACK. Dictators (tyrants actually) don't operate in a vacuum and they force themselves to be dealt with. We dealt with him.

Morgan

Eric, I perfectly well understand the concept of sunk costs. I just don't think it applies here. This is so much more than an economics 101 concept.

It is your opinion that this war is unjust. Fine, that's your opinion. It's not fact. As far as killing on both sides, as soon as they (terrorists/insurgents/mercenaries) stop killing, my belief if that we'll stop killing as well. As far as precedent, I guess we'll never know what could have happened if we HADN'T invaded Iraq. All we can look at is what HAS happened, which is the FACT that there have been no acts of terror committed on U.S. soil since 9/11. As for Bush, I'm no constitutional scholar, but exactly what acts did he perform that are unconstitutional? As for our standing in the world, frankly, I don't give a damn. We are the ONLY superpower in the world, and we need to start ACTING like it. I believe we've spent the last twenty years or so trying to out-European the Europeans in our eagerness to be loved, and where has it gotten us?

I believe that we ARE thinking strategically. How is a stable Middle East, with the U.S. potentially building a friendly relationship with a major oil producer not in our best interests strategically? Okay, you got me -- that wasn't the stated justification for the war. I don't give a damn about politicians' resumes. I don't care who looks foolish now or is trying to save face. All that matters now is that we are there, and we absolutely OWE it to the people of this country, the people of Iraq, and especially the brave men and women who gave their lives for this war to find a way to make their sacrifices justified. Only by not finishing the job do we dishonor those sacrifices.

You may have heard recently about Matt Maupin, the young soldier who was missing for four years. I live in Cincinnati, so the return of his remains and his burial were big news here. If you were to confront his parents with the argument you're making, or for that matter, anyone who's lost a loved one, I suspect they'll tell you the same thing -- they probably don't care about Bush, or Rumsfield, or Patraeus. I believe all they would want is for the U.S. to find a way to end the war so their loved one didn't die in vain. YOU tell these people the war is meaningless. YOU explain to them the irrelevance of sunk costs. See what happens.

I'm done.

"It is your opinion that this war is unjust. Fine, that's your opinion. It's not fact."

I find it fascinating that you think moral codes against unjust wars are matters of opinion. Of course if you really believe this -- and for your argument to hold in water, you must -- you then must also agree that the German invasion of Poland, or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, or any act of aggression in history is not "unjust", but only a matter of opinion.

"All we can look at is what HAS happened, which is the FACT that there have been no acts of terror committed on U.S. soil since 9/11."

Obviously, you not only skipped your economic classes, but the ones in logic as well. This is just an expression of an elementary logical fallacy: post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, so therefore because of this). To wit, After the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 there has been no terrorist attack on US soil, so therefore because of the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 there has been no attack on US soil. This claim proves nothing.

"How is a stable Middle East, with the U.S. potentially building a friendly relationship with a major oil producer not in our best interests strategically?"

Exactly how is the Middle East more stable considering that the Turks have invaded northern Iraq; Iranians seemed poised to develop nuclear technology. John McCain said we may have to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Is this a sign that things have "stabilized?"

Besides, the belief that we can invade Iraq, prop up a "democratic" government that will eventually be soverieign and an ally of the United States relfects the most extreme form of utopianism. Conservatives measure policies by their consequences, not their intentions (wishful thinking). Perhaps there are communists out there with good intentions, but that doesn't take away from the evil of communism itself.

"OWE it to the people of this country, the people of Iraq, and especially the brave men and women who gave their lives for this war to find a way to make their sacrifices justified."

Learn the idea of "sunk costs," and get back to me.

" believe all they would want is for the U.S. to find a way to end the war so their loved one didn't die in vain."

This proves my point. People are now dying in vain in Iraq. The hope is that something magical will happen to make the "sacrifice" worth it. But things don't work this way. This shows the Iraq war doesn't have a justification, but just a "hope" that things will get better. Hope isn't a strategy, nor is it a case for war.

I have not been back to Flynn Files for awhile - but this current-top entry seems like just the right one, for me to return for!!

This is the precise issue that I have been emphasizing, for over six years.

I noticed that several of these conservatives didn't oppose the war, until after it had begun... Here's a compilation of nearly 100 conservative columnists and over 20 conservative organizations that opposed the Iraq war, before it began.

(And, we've previously discussed the pro-war liberals... And also in the context of the last national elections - this could be a reason why the Democrat Congress has not done anything much differently, regarding the Iraq situation.)

It's great that there is another conservative blogger, who is covering this topic... Keep up the great work!

"In Defense of the Bush Doctrine" (2008) Robert G. Kaufman
The University Press of Kentucky

I was for the war, before I opposed it.

THE PERILS OF ISOLATIONISM
Likewise, in the prohibitively unlikely event that the United States ever embraced it, Buchanan's or any other variant of an America-first policy would yield nothing but strategic and moral disaster in today's environment. The imperatives of geopolitics still mandate a strong, activist, global American foreign policy for the reasons Henry Kissinger described: "Geopolitically, America is an Island off the shores of a large landmass of Eurasia, whose resourses and population far exceed the United States. The domination of a single power of either of Eurasia's two principle spheres- Europe or Asia-remains a good definition of strategic danger for America.... For such a grouping add the capacity to outstrip America economically, and in the end, militarily."
Similarly, the United States still must prevent any hostile entity from dominating the Middle East. The world's need to ensure access to that region's enormous supplies of oil is an important reason but not the only vital one. Such a hegemon would pose an unacceptable strategic danger by having the potential to combine the power emanating from controlling the Middle East's oil reserves with radicalism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Especially in a unipolar world in which the United States is the sole superpower, robust American power and the willingness to use that power remain indispensable to deter hegemonic threats from arising in vital geopolitical regions, or to defeat such bids at the lowest possible cost and risk, should deterrence fail. The diffusion of WMD capabilities has expanded the zone from which grave threats can arise. Now smaller countries can conceivably inflict the type of damage on the United States that in previous eras required a large geopolitical power base even to contemplate. The United States must possess the capabilities and inclination to thwart such threats as well.
Like Buchanan, liberal isolationists such as Eric Nordlinger have it backwards when they advocate maximizing conciliation, disengaging from America's worldwide alliance system, and reassuring dangerous challengers. The best practicable order depends on the United States robustly deterring its adversaries and reassuring its friends by clear and credible commitments to vital geopolitical regions.
Contrary to Nordlinger's and Buchanan's claims, the United States can afford to operate as the ultimate balancer in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East, now and for some time to come. Even Paul Kennedy has repudiated his earlier warnings about the dangers of American Imperial overstretch, from which Buchanan draws so heavily. Writing in the FINANCIAL TIMES in February 2002, Kennedy marveled that "nothing has ever existed like the disparity in power" between the United States and the rest of the world-not even in Roman, Muslim , or British empires at their peaks The United States spends more on deterrence than the next nine countries combined, an asymmetry that will increase as the United States under President Bush continues to raise defense spending sustantially. The result is an array of force Kennedy calls "staggering"
Simultaneously, the American share of world economic product steadily expanded from 22 percent in 19980s to about 30 percent today, as the Russian and Japanese share declined. Since the 1980s growth rates in the Europeean Union also have lagged behind those of the United States . This trend is likely to continue because Western Europe's demographic decline, an overgenerous welfare state, the difficulty assimilating its burgeoning Muslim population, and the inability of Western European governments to muster the will to make their economic systems more competitive.
Even more remarkably, the United States achieved and can sustain it's current level of military predominance indefinately and inexpensively. The United States now spends less than 4 percent of it gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, compared with 13.5 in fiscal year (FY) 1953 under President Truman, 8.7 percent in FY 1969 under President Johnson, and 6.0 percent FY 1986 under President Reagan. The Bush administration's defense spending as a percentage of GDP is just slightly higher than that of the Roosevelt adminstration on the eve of Pearl Harbor, when the United States remained unprepared and isolationist.
In the long term, China potentially poses the most serious threat to American predominance. Nevertheless, the gravity of this thrust will depend on whether the Chinese economy continues to grow annually at a rate of 9 or 10 percent for the next three decades; and whether the political system averts the cataclysmic convolutions that frequently plunge the nation into chaos. The American economy will remain way ahead of China's, even under the most optimistic scenarios for Chinese economic growth and political stability. Josef Joffe shows why with this highly plausible calculation; assuming China maintains a 7 percent annual growth rate endlessly, and assuming the U.S. economy grows correspondingly at a modest 3 percent a year, the U.S. GDP in 2035 will still exceed China's by a factor 2.5
Writing in the March/April 2005 issue of FOREIGN AFFAIRS, David S. Levy and Stuart H. Brown sum up their persuasive refutation of the overstretch myth this way:

Despite the persistence and pervasiveness of this
doomsday prophesy,U.S. hegemony is in reality solidly
grounded: it rests on an economy that is continually
extending its lead in the innovation and application
of new technologies, ensuring its continuing
appeal for foreign central banks and private investors.
The dollar's role as the global monetary standard is
not threatened, and the risk to U.S. financial liabilities
has been exaggerated. To be sure, the economy will at
some point have to adjust to the decline in the dollar
and a rise in interest rates. But these trends will at
worst slow down the growth of U.S.
consumer's standard's of living, not undermine
the United States' role as global pacesetter. If anything,
the world's appetite for U.S. assets bolsters U.S.
predominace rather than undermines it.

The upshot is this: no plausible counterweight to American diplomatic, military, and political power looms on the horizon for many years to come. What the United States has not been able to afford since the beginning of the twenty-first century is the America-first strategy that Pat Buchanan and other contemporary isolationists propound.

Robert G. Kaufman - In Defense of The Bush Doctrine (2008)

joe a. if that dont splain it to the isolationist gang here at the flynn files, nothing will. i used to think, hell with the world let it burn, but in todays world it is tooo dangerous. you just cant take that chance.

mel gibson?? ........mostly all pre-surge quotes....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pn3Qd4C-tI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oZG4hl73bk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5A_fiZvKPc&feature=related

cut and paste into the address bar..... get well soon!!!!

What's missing from the quoted disclaimers and comments above is the word "Israel". Israel is the main reason we went into Iraq. The neocons want US soldiers standing between Iran and Israel. They are also willing to have Americans serving in the occupation forces killed and maimed year after year by Muslims (remember John Podhoretz' gleeful "now we know how Israel feels!" after 9/11) so that the US will come to hate Muslims as much as the Israelis do. The object is to force US political opinion and leadership into line with Israel's interests. We've got to get the neocons out of our government, jail the Israeli spies and agents of influence, and take our country back.