Thursday, July 12, 2007
One of the top two reasons Bush's kool-aid drinking supporters give for staying in Iraq is to prevent a full fledged civil war from breaking out that would lead to tens upon tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths (fighting terrorists is the other top reason); supposedly, our military is the only thing that is keeping the Iraqis from really going after one another.
I would have thought that having American soldiers die in such a cause would be something the left would rally around. They're the ones who don't think much of our military men and women; they pretty much think our military is a bunch of low IQ baby killers. They're the ones so enthralled with the multicultural nonsense that pronounces all cultures equal (in fact, they usually think of other cultures as being superior to ours). They're the ones claiming that America has been such a bad influence on the world and how we have a special obligation to sacrifice ourselves to help everyone else. They're the ones who tilt at windmills, chasing impossible dreams (in this case, bringing peace to that God-forsaken part of the world).
Given this, I would have figured the left would be the ones pushing for American troops to go off and die in order to protect the lives of these 'poor' Iraqis.
And yet, it is the right (and surprisingly, some somewhat libertarian types) that go on about how we're 'obligated' to stick around and keep the Iraqis from really going at one another. According to them, we're morally responsible to do all we can to keep a civil war from breaking out. They're the ones who so vehemently oppose any kind of a time limit or a limit on the number of American troops who die or are wounded in the process. To them, we're required to offer up an unlimited amount of money and young American lives to keep an Iraqi civil war from taking place.
And I am puzzled. How can the right, who pride themselves on love of country and their fellow Americans, be so willing to sacrifice so many of those Americans in order to save non-Americans? How can the right, who normally pride themselves on their support for a strong military, be so willing to have our military bled so severely for a cause that does absolutely nothing to protect America. How can they be so willing to have our military capabilities compromised so much? How can the right, usually so concerned about federal spending, be so willing to open up the federal purse for the hundreds of billions of dollars that is being spent? (contrast the lack of concern over the money being spent on Iraq with their relatively overblown concern about a much smaller amount of money being spent on earmarks). How can the right, who consider themselves the realists in life (compared to the idealistic, naive liberal), put so much faith in our ability to turn the Iraqis into people who don't, as the saying goes, hate their enemies more than they love their kids?
The only thing I can figure is that, just as Democrats who normally could have been counted on to condemn a boss who solicited sexual favors from young, impressionable women on his staff decided that rallying round a Democrat President was more important than staying true to their principles, so too have a large number of Republicans decided that backing fellow Republican Bush was more important than staying true to the principles I've outlined above.
The puzzling thing is that Republicans have had no problem going after Bush for the other stupid things he has done. They blasted him for his pro-amnesty stance, just as they did earlier for nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
And yet, on the issue of Iraq, they stick with Bush despite the total lack of any conservatively-based rationale for doing so.
It's enough to make a true conservative's head spin. What was right is now left, what was left is now right.