A True Conservative Against The Iraq War
I've been hoping for a long time that the True Conservatives of America would at some point rise up in defense of their nation against the BFEE/PNAC Petroleum Pirate Posse. Every now and then, one of them does stand up. The only problem is - not enough do, and for not long enough.
I found the following op-ed on Buzzflash, which has this to say about it:
Conservative Columnist Steven Chapman (He's the Old School Real Conservative Type, Not the Right Wing "Rocks for Brain" Type) Gives Advice to John Kerry -- And Chapman's On the Money: "Where's the Loyal Opposition to the War?"
The good news for opponents of the war in Iraq is that President Bush's challenger has finally called for a rapid American withdrawal. The bad news is that the challenger's name is Ralph Nader.
John Kerry, by contrast, sounds as though he thinks the only thing worse than making a mistake is correcting it. Apparently he is determined to prove to Nader and millions of other disenchanted Americans that there really is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Nader: "Every day the U.S. military remains in Iraq, we imperil U.S. security, drain our economy, ignore our nation's domestic needs and prevent democratic self-rule from developing in Iraq."
Kerry: "We cannot fail. I've said that many times. And if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos, that can provide the groundwork for other countries, that's what you have to do."
We get enough of that crap from George Warmonger Bush. You remember him, don't you, John? The guy you are supposed to replace in the White House?
And we were thinking that the Deomcrats had finally learned the lessons of presenting GOP-Lite as an alternative!
It was probably too much to hope that Kerry would take a strong stand against this war, since he lacked the nerve to vote against giving the president the authority to start it. But his latest position is even worse than might have been expected. Kerry shares something basic with President Bush on this issue: an adamant refusal to face reality.
How does he plan to cope with the smoking debacle created by the administration? "I will return to the UN, and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations," he said. Giving more authority to the UN in Iraq, he says, is "a prerequisite to bringing other countries to the table."
Iraq is sliding out of control, with violence claiming more American casualties all the time, and he thinks other governments can be induced to share our burden? Internationalizing the occupation might have been possible before the invasion, or shortly afterward. But thanks to the expanding chaos, we can't even keep the foreign troops we've got there now. We might as well ask the UN to assume our national debt.
George Warmonger Bush doesn't get any slack from Chapman:
Not that Bush has any more of a clue. He continues to pretend that slogans and swagger can overcome a nationalist uprising in a country where our presence is resented more and more all the time.
In recent weeks, the U.S. occupation authority has managed to turn the once-quiescent Shiites against us, pushing them into an alliance with their longtime Sunni rivals.
Even the head of our handpicked Iraqi Governing Council, Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani, said this week that the American troops are no longer "an army of liberation" but "an army of occupation."
The administration has a habit of basing its plan on political concerns rather than military needs, but military needs sometimes push their way to the forefront. Instead of reducing troop strength before the election, as he hoped, Bush has had to keep some units in Iraq long after they were supposed to come home.
Even Chapman's fellow conservatives get a touch of the sharp:
Some conservatives grasp the magnitude of the task. The Weekly Standard magazine editorialized recently that 30,000 more troops "are needed just to deal with the current crisis. Even more troops may well be needed to fully pacify the country."
More troops might help, but more troops are extremely hard to come by. Given its other missions--in Afghanistan, Korea, Bosnia, Haiti and elsewhere--the American military is simply not big enough to sustain an extended occupation on this scale.
Chapman concludes with what should be John F. Kerry's mantra against the BFEE/PNAC Petroleum Pirate Posse:
So here's the predicament: We can't manage an increasingly turbulent Iraq with the forces we have. We don't have many extra troops to send. We can't turn over security to Iraqis because they can't be trusted. We can't get other countries to help us out. And things keep getting worse.
Democrats and Republicans agree that we have to go on squandering American lives because we don't know what else to do. But the option of leaving is thinkable only to fringe candidates like Nader.
From your keyboard to American eyes, Mr. Chapman.