No more neoconservative wars needed

Published 12:55 pm Tuesday, May 28, 2019

“I know where this path leads us and I’m concerned because the American people don’t seem to be prepared for how devastating and costly such a war would be.”

U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii

The news cycle has been consumed lately with people advocating, on different levels, for conflict with Iran. Those opposing, as far as being featured in the news, are few and far between. Gabbard, one of the few that has been a staunch opponent of any escalation or military involvement with Iran, is a minority even in her party. Her service to our country in both Kuwait and Iraq gives her a better perspective on this issue than say, John Bolton, a neoconservative war hawk, who served our country in the Army reserves but never saw combat.

That being said, neither perspective or life experience guarantees one to be correct in their opinion on this issue, no matter Hawk or Dove. For full disclosure I am generally a non-interventionist. I am probably not a Hawk, especially in light of most neoconservative foreign policy. But, I am certainly not a Dove. I supported the first Iraq War after the invasion of Kuwait. In fact, I joined the Army while in high school in hopes of going. And though I was proud and would have been even prouder to go to war, thankfully the war was over before I had to face up to boyish folly. I supported our invasion of Afghanistan after the attacks on 9/11/2001. While I opposed Iraq II, Libya, our support of Arab spring, Syria. Heck, if I were alive in the 11th Century I would have supported Pope Urban’s first crusade. War is a hell that is detestable in any situation, but sometimes it is necessary to prevent evils even greater than war. If Truman had followed Patton’s warnings and fought to take Eastern Europe then perhaps the further bloodshed in the short term would have saved tens of millions of lives under communist persecution.

We’ll never know that now, but we can more than reasonably, surmise the future. Gabbard’s comments about Iran would be absolutely correct based on recent involvements. Bolton, and his ilk, like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, Bob Kagan, Elliot Abrams, Dick Cheney and so on, have found few places on Earth they haven’t wanted to invade and dispose of said governments. The track record, even back to the 1950s when Operation Ajax disposed of then Iranian government, has proven to be mixed at an absolute best. And horrifying at its absolute worst.

While I supported invading Afghanistan, and would support again, our prosecution of the war has been mired since Tora Bora when the focus erroneously turned to Iraq. In fact, we have to go back to Genghis Khan to find a conqueror who ruled the area effectively. The Soviets, and the British long before them, should have been lessons the neocons took to heart in planning for occupation. Iraq is a drastically different country now than when we invaded there over 15 years ago. We removed a despot and a tyrant in Saddam Hussein, who by all accounts was not a good man, and replaced him with a collection of tyrants. The same goes for Libya, where we removed Muammar Qaddafi, also a man who by all accounts a tyrant, to now have open slave markets (thanks Obama) and tribal conflicts in Libya. We removed tyrants who held together order and peace with an iron hand that allowed multiple tyrants to usher in chaos and terror with an iron hand as well.

I am not foolish enough, or cowardly, to say we must avoid conflict at all times. In fact, there are times, when conflict is preferable to acquiescence that masquerades as peace. This is not the neoconservative plan however. Neocons, like John Bolton advocate for military involvement on some level, and in most cases “regime change” all over the globe. More often than not, if not all the time, they advocate to remove truly awful individuals. In most cases however, the demon they topple is replaced with a legion of demons even worse. This is done without accomplishing anything tangible, such as peace, order and prosperity for the nations involved. It adds more deaths and maiming to our brave soldiers who give themselves on these foreign fields. It expends billions upon billions from our public coffers that could be used for our national interests at home. All this done to put in people who are more friendly to our interests, which turn out to never be. It’s no surprise that these failed policies of the neoconservatives can be traced back to the Trotskyites of which they originate.

So to sum up, while sometimes war is preferable to tyranny, the constant state of war and chaos the neoconservatives support is preferable to nothing. While I support wholeheartedly those who serve our great nation in the armed services, I do not supporting putting the constantly in harms way to serve globalist aims, and not our national interests. And while myself and many like me would not hesitate to take arms in defense of this nation, and at times to defend the weak in other places, it is better to follow the advice or St. Francis of Assisi and be instruments of peace, rather than war. Or as our Lord said; “blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God.”