www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall A Conservative Critique of the Warfare State

A fine article on the conservative thinker Robert Nisbet, and his criticism of the culture of war and the imperial presidency: here [amconmag.com]
-Daniel

I find more often than not "conservative" critics to be not much more than "Libertarian" critics or the disgruntled and disaffected. But in a nutshell in regard to the article it takes on the Neo-Cons without fully giving credit to their ideoogical purpose or vision which calls into question its conclusions. Although not a Neo-Con, my views are very much influenced by Strauss/Rosen/Bloom and find their expression in a conservatism with a populist tinge. Truthfully, I view as suspect anything which rejects the need for greatness, either in human achievement or national endeavour. We're ALL probably sick of this pointless technocratic machine, and let's face it--the enemy is literally in his bunker and our troops are in the streets of Berlin: this is nothing more than defeatism...

It is one thing to be "anti-militarism" and another to be "anti-military".

The author, citing references to FDR. Lets see. He was President during WWII wasn't he? Lets see Nazism, and the Empire of Japan. Hmmmm. Nice guys. They were militaristic. We responded by attacking them after Pearly Harbor. I always remember my parents saying that FDR lied to the American people in one of his fire-side chats. "Our boys will not go overseas". We had an isolationist attitude until WWI.

The world is a much smaller place now since WWII. Terrorists can hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings in the US. If that isn't scary I don't know what is, except the concept of a dirty bomb or the use of chemical or disease borne weapons.

You can criticize the President as being a war monger, but remember it was Moslem terroists who attacked us first. (Remember the first World Trade Center bombing in '93?)

It's pretty clear from the record that Bush and his neocon mentors intended to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11, which they used as a pretext for pursuing their imperialistic aims. It was all spelled out long before any of them came to power, as you can see in this statement from 1997 [newamericancentury.org] , and this article from the Weekly Standard in 1998 [newamericancentury.org] . The statement was signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Abrams, Wolfowitz and others who went on to important positions in the Bush administration [also signed by the Catholic neocon George Weigel].
-Daniel

Make that this article from the Weekly Standard [newamericancentury.org]

The Weekly Standard article was used as a pretext for the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION to ram THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ ACT "unilaterally" through Congress to avoid impeachment in 1998. Some of the most vocal anti-war dems lobbied for it, been reelected in several elections since by their dem base...So, the tiring aspect of liberal anti-war nonsense is that THEY MADE IT THE LAW OF THE LAND before there was even hint of a Bush administration. And, now, they provide al jazeera with agitprop which encourages the manufacture of ieds and the recruitment of suicide bombers IN LIGHT OF al qaedas declared jihad. al qaeda IS fighting us in Iraq. The dems would hand them a victory to defeat the GOP--sickening!!! They don't care they're murdering troops as long as they can score political points. The left has to realize its not 1974, the majority does not want socialism and the leftist policy vision is failure after failure--ABLE DANGER anyone?! Oil For Food?! We have elections in Iraq in less than 8 days with a representative government in place and a genocidal egomaniac jailed enroute to the gallows. LET'S HAVE SOME PERSPECTIVE. And, oh, let's have an assessment of the goals of the Neo-Cons vs the chris matthews/dean "blame America first" crowd: you'll see the one pushing for national greatness while the other for a mishmash of the decadence of the '60s & '70s...'nuff said.

Uh, if you are done with your rant, note that the title of this thread refers to a conservative critique of the warfare state. While I hesitate to label myself politically, I find conservative criticism of the administration and its war on the whole more cogent and principled than the left's...
-Daniel

Excuse my rant of facts--let's not let truth get in the way--but as I've noted, "conservative" critiques of the war are not so much "more interesting" as curious, for I think their inherent defeatism shouts out an agenda which is indeed NOT CONSERVATIVE. After all, ANYONE who is prepared to wave the white flag and hand concessions to bin laden is either mentally unstable, anti-American/civilization (my wife doesn't need to wear a burkha, and I choose not to live in a caliphate, taliban state!) or simply mentally absent in assessing the goals of islamism...Not to mention we have a representative government, popular elections in 7 days and are a bringing a genocidal maniac to justice IN FIGHTING THIS "unjust war." I am just as dismissive of this piece as I would be of a "conservative" critique of the "warfare state" in its "provocative efforts/warmongering" against hitler...

If this is the best you can do- that anyone who would disagree with you about the war is crazy, pro-bin Laden, anti-American, anti-civilization, or retarded I'm afraid I am not interested in further conversation. I readily grant that well-meaning, intelligent and patriotic people [like our honorable Administrator ] can be in favor of the war. If you cannot grant a similarly charitable assessment of us who are anti-war this will not be an intelligent conversation, but only a rehash of the sort of drivel that clogs the airwaves on talk radio, and I am turning the dial.
And huh? We are at war with bin Laden in Iraq? Al Queda had no presence in Iraq until we invited them in with our ill-conceived invasion. And I for one cannot believe the USA is at all serious about capturing him. If we are it is Keystone-Cops level hilarious that the most powerful nation on earth has been unable to do so in over four years...
-Daniel
ps: have you not noticed the italics thing at the bottom of the page? Or do you intend to SHOUT?

What part of the presentation did you miss? The al qaeda question vis a vis Iraq: the 9/11 Commission reported Iraqi contacts with bin laden in the early 1990s. German and Czech intel still maintains atta met with Iraqi operatives in Prague prior to 9/11. And, al qaeda is going for broke in Iraq--al zarqawi is indeed there. And it's not a matter of a "rehash," but not considering DEFEATIST agitprop which is emboldening the enemy and getting our troops KILLED. As of May 2003, no insurgency, then al jazeera and the global left began its propaganda machine from hotel rooms and not in the field to evince a reaction. I reiterate with prejudice that in 1998, the left was all for the LIBERATION OF IRAQ, yet now wants to hand over the situation to the enemy...all for a perceived political gain over the GOP on the verge of victory: elections in 7 days. YEAH, THAT'S UNAMERICAN: our troops are getting killed by the terrorists emboldened by the antiwar types. How many more has sheehan killed?! They think they can win another "vietnam." It's far too dangerous a time to replay the degeneracy of the '60s. But it seems any fact except the pre-programmed nyt trype won't do...including nyt trype from 1998. Perhaps, addressing the facts you are uncomfortable with might mediate your dismissal of anyone who does not agree with you or the preprogrammed leftist template of antiwar defeatism...Succinctly, whom are you aiding by your stance? Our troops in the field or is the enemy emboldened with the hope of victory due to collapse of American morale? That's the crux of my counter-argument. There are times where national cohesion are called for. These are such perilous times. Again, this war was quite the fashion on the left in 1998, and "undermining the commander-in-chief in time of war" was all the talk. Hypocrisy, inaccuracy, political ambition without care for the troops or the country but the hope of regaining political power...the motive of the now antiwar left. bin laden was offered to bill clinton on three occasions and he had firing solutions on him on at least two other. Able Danger could have stopped 9/11 but was suppressed by the clinton administration. Somebody mentioned "keystone cops"?! Now there's talk of getting bin laden?! Hypocrisy and cynicism fuelled by a gamble to regain political power at the expense of the nation...SHAMEFUL.

I'm out of this talk show level shout-out, but will gladly engage with any reasonable person on the topic at hand...
-Daniel

In other words, you won't discuss the bankruptcy of your position? Facts mean nothing--only your effete ideology must be preserved. How many more IEDs have to be made, suicide bombers encouraged and allied troops killed before your propaganda machine is satisfied? "Talk show" boulderdash and your talking points?! Launched by INTERNATIONAL ANSWER, a marxist organization...Stop inspiring the enemy to kill our troops in the gamble of defeating the GOP! The left had NO PROBLEM WITH THIS WAR IN 1998--you made it the law of the land and reelected the people who did so OVER AND OVER again. Your cynicism is bloody...It seems the truth hurts, doesn't it?!

Oh, yes, that must be it... :rolleyes:
Actually, it doesn't appear to me that you are interested in "discussing" anything. All you have done is YELL, call names, demonize "the left" [uh, that is not what this thread is about], mischaracterize me and what I am saying, and in general act like an irrational nutcase. I am not interested in such exchanges.
I was hoping that a moderator would notice your rude, in-your-face behaviour and step in, but I know that they can't be expected to monitor these conversations so closely, and I am loathe to call upon them, preferring to handle these unpleasantries myself.
You are new here, and so far have distinguished yourself by rude behaviour. You give Orthodoxy a bad name by doing this, and I hope you will step back and see yourself as others see you.
-Daniel

There is no more rude posturing than ad hominem assaults from a person, who somehow takes it upon himself to discuss "conservative" opinions, but then dismisses legitimate, conservative thought. I've beeen a Reagan Republican and campaigner going on 20 years and I'm well aware of what is mainstream and accepted in political discourse--the left has no monopoly on determining "conservative thought," nor does it have the right to dismiss it. Again I reiterate, staying on topic, in all truth and sincerity, whom is your opposition serving? Is it helping troops in the field or is it emboldening the terrorists to kill them? If you have provoked one attack or emboldened the murder of one soldier, has not your dissent crossed the line and become akin to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre? I approach this passionately, for the lives of troops in the field are dear to me; moreover, 9/11 is not forgotten here, and I don't want similar horrors in my community. The great pain of the grieving and the threat to the nation impose upon me to approach this passionately, for handing victory to the enemy is a crime against the future. No amount of obfuscation and genuine "namecalling" can deflect these points.

THE SANDS OF CHRISTMAS
by Michael Marks

I had no Christmas spirit when I breathed a weary sigh,
And looked across the table where the bills were piled too high.

The laundry wasn't finished and the car I had to fix,
My stocks were down another point, the Chargers lost by six.

And so with only minutes till my son got home from school
I gave up on the drudgery and grabbed a wooden stool.

The burdens that I carried were about all I could take,
And so I flipped the TV on to catch a little break.

I came upon a desert scene in shades of tan and rust,
No snowflakes hung upon the wind, just clouds of swirling dust.

And where the reindeer should have stood before a laden sleigh,
Eight Humvees ran a column right behind an M1A.

A group of boys walked past the tank, not one was past his teens
Their eyes were hard as polished flint, their faces drawn and lean.

They walked the street in armor with their rifles shouldered tight,
Their dearest wish for Christmas, just to have a silent night.

Other soldiers gathered, hunkered down against the wind,
To share a scrap of mail and dreams of going home again

There wasn't much at all to put their lonely hearts at ease,
They had no Christmas turkey, just a pack of MREs.

They didn't have a garland or a stocking I could see,
They didn't need an ornament--they lacked a Christmas tree.

They didn't have a present even though it was tradition,
The only boxes I could see were labeled "ammunition."

I felt a little tug and found my son now by my side,
He asked me what it was I feared, and why it was I cried.

I swept him up into my arms and held him oh so near
And kissed him on the forehead as I whispered in his ear.

"There's nothing wrong, my little son, for safe we sleep tonight
Our heroes stand on foreign land to give us all the right,

To worry on the things in life that mean nothing at all,
Instead of wondering if we will be the next to fall."

He looked at me as children do and said, "it's always right,
To thank the ones who help us and perhaps that we should write."

And so we pushed aside the bills and sat to draft a note,
To thank the many far from home, and this is what we wrote:

"God bless you all and keep you safe, and speed your way back home.
Remember that we love you so, and that you're not alone.

The gift you give you share with all, a present every day,
You give the gift of liberty and that we can't repay."


"I freely submit this poem for reprint without reservation--this is an open and grateful tribute to the men and women who serve every day to keep our nation safe." ~ Michael Marks