Post by Gus on Nov 11, 2006 22:57:56 GMT 4
Michelle, yes I know Chuck Baldwin. I have much respect for the man.
His writings in 2000 were the main reason I choose not to vote for Bush that year (voting 3rd party instead). But in this case he is simply wrong. He is engaging in 9-10 thinking.
I am not a fan of the "neocons". The so called "neo" (meaning "new") "cons" (meaning conservative) are nothing but "yesterday's liberals". The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. since many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism they quite frankly got it wrong.
Where they they get it wrong? Well they got it wrong in what they believe the purpose of America's armed forces is. They believe that it should be a force that goes out to fight for democratics and against tyranny. True conservatives, as myself however see the purpose of our military as being one thing - protect the vital security interests of the United States. And while sure it can be debated what is in our vital security interests or not, if there are no American security interests at stake, but instead merely a general "fight for democracy" given as the sole reason for the fight, we would feel it immoral to ask our soldiers to die when America's interests is at stake.
So that means that while it may be easy for the neocon to justify going into Bosnia and such, it would be harder for someone to me to link Bosnia to protecting America.
So, where does Buchannan and Baldwin respectfully get it wrong? And I do mean respectifully as both Buchannan and Baldwin has shown how one can speak out against the war and still be for the war effort. They have shown how one does loyal war criticism. Well I agree with them that you just can't go out being "Superman" writing the wrongs of the world. That just leads to lots of enemies. But by the same token we can't, especially in this day and age with all those weapons of mass destruction out there disengage totally and wait for the enemy to come to us. That's what we did in the case of the Islamo-fascists before 9-11.
I do believe that Iraq is a front in that war. If it wasn't so, why did all the terrorists go over there to fight. It is a strategic call whether or not it was the best place to fight, but since we are there, I don't know why Baldwin doesn't understand why we have to win it. For retreat and the weakeness it would show would embolden the terrorist groups leading to more attacks on American soil.
Now here is how I and most conservatives would depart from the Neo-Cons. The Neo-Cons in their idealistic world view want to see democracy florish in Iraq. But I while I would love that all countries have a constitutional-republican form of government, I know that we don't live in an idealistic world and some times we must engage in some harsh real world actions in order to survive. The development of the concept of a democracy or a constitutional republic took thousands of years to develop in Western philosophy. Can we really expect people with no tradition or background in Western philosophy, people who's only experience is with depotism to just automatically become democratic overnight? We are still in many ways trying to get a handle of this whole Constitutional Republic thing ourselves and we had when we were founded the tradition of the Magna Carta to use as our foundation. The Iraqis, the Muslims, all of them don't have that philosophical foundation to base their government upon.
So, while the "neo cons" might want to establish a democracy in Iraq at all costs I look to what I see as the only purpose of our Military which is to secure the vital interests of our country. And sure while ideally a democracy in Iraq would be great eventially, perhaps at this time it isn't possible, or it isn't in our interests to force one upon them. We don't live in a perfect world, and I feel it is immoral to ask our troops to die when our interests are not at stake. So if we can secure Iraq better and the expense of fewer American lives to leave Iraq a depotism, then that is what we should do. And hope that over time they can work their way to a more democratic form of government. But at the end of the day that has to come from them, and not from the blood of our soldiers. We just have to ensure that they can't hurt us regardless.
By the way, if you want to know the pulse of the core of the grassroots of the conservative movement I would suggest that you listen to Michael Savage on the Radio. I have listened to him and he best represents what I believe. I am not saying I might not have slight disagreements with him but of all of them out there he is closest to the thinking that I and my conservative neighbors have about what is going on in the world. And he hates the "neo cons" as much as you and I do.
His writings in 2000 were the main reason I choose not to vote for Bush that year (voting 3rd party instead). But in this case he is simply wrong. He is engaging in 9-10 thinking.
I am not a fan of the "neocons". The so called "neo" (meaning "new") "cons" (meaning conservative) are nothing but "yesterday's liberals". The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. since many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism they quite frankly got it wrong.
Where they they get it wrong? Well they got it wrong in what they believe the purpose of America's armed forces is. They believe that it should be a force that goes out to fight for democratics and against tyranny. True conservatives, as myself however see the purpose of our military as being one thing - protect the vital security interests of the United States. And while sure it can be debated what is in our vital security interests or not, if there are no American security interests at stake, but instead merely a general "fight for democracy" given as the sole reason for the fight, we would feel it immoral to ask our soldiers to die when America's interests is at stake.
So that means that while it may be easy for the neocon to justify going into Bosnia and such, it would be harder for someone to me to link Bosnia to protecting America.
So, where does Buchannan and Baldwin respectfully get it wrong? And I do mean respectifully as both Buchannan and Baldwin has shown how one can speak out against the war and still be for the war effort. They have shown how one does loyal war criticism. Well I agree with them that you just can't go out being "Superman" writing the wrongs of the world. That just leads to lots of enemies. But by the same token we can't, especially in this day and age with all those weapons of mass destruction out there disengage totally and wait for the enemy to come to us. That's what we did in the case of the Islamo-fascists before 9-11.
I do believe that Iraq is a front in that war. If it wasn't so, why did all the terrorists go over there to fight. It is a strategic call whether or not it was the best place to fight, but since we are there, I don't know why Baldwin doesn't understand why we have to win it. For retreat and the weakeness it would show would embolden the terrorist groups leading to more attacks on American soil.
Now here is how I and most conservatives would depart from the Neo-Cons. The Neo-Cons in their idealistic world view want to see democracy florish in Iraq. But I while I would love that all countries have a constitutional-republican form of government, I know that we don't live in an idealistic world and some times we must engage in some harsh real world actions in order to survive. The development of the concept of a democracy or a constitutional republic took thousands of years to develop in Western philosophy. Can we really expect people with no tradition or background in Western philosophy, people who's only experience is with depotism to just automatically become democratic overnight? We are still in many ways trying to get a handle of this whole Constitutional Republic thing ourselves and we had when we were founded the tradition of the Magna Carta to use as our foundation. The Iraqis, the Muslims, all of them don't have that philosophical foundation to base their government upon.
So, while the "neo cons" might want to establish a democracy in Iraq at all costs I look to what I see as the only purpose of our Military which is to secure the vital interests of our country. And sure while ideally a democracy in Iraq would be great eventially, perhaps at this time it isn't possible, or it isn't in our interests to force one upon them. We don't live in a perfect world, and I feel it is immoral to ask our troops to die when our interests are not at stake. So if we can secure Iraq better and the expense of fewer American lives to leave Iraq a depotism, then that is what we should do. And hope that over time they can work their way to a more democratic form of government. But at the end of the day that has to come from them, and not from the blood of our soldiers. We just have to ensure that they can't hurt us regardless.
By the way, if you want to know the pulse of the core of the grassroots of the conservative movement I would suggest that you listen to Michael Savage on the Radio. I have listened to him and he best represents what I believe. I am not saying I might not have slight disagreements with him but of all of them out there he is closest to the thinking that I and my conservative neighbors have about what is going on in the world. And he hates the "neo cons" as much as you and I do.