Comments on: Conservatives in Name Only

By: Antonio Germano

Antonio Germano — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:08:50 +0000

Dear Ilana,

This was one of your best columns to date. I really appreciated your definition of conservatives as people who seek to preserve or restore institutions that they believe are good and just. I also appreciated your insights regarding the rights of Iraqis to be free without imposing any obligation on our part to free them. This is a good argument against the war that does not rely on arguing the merits of the justifications for it (if there are, or were, any).

I have believed almost from the beginning of the Iraq war that it would prove to be a fool’s errand. While I believe that the world would be safer if Muslim countries were more democratic, and less fanatic about exterminating Israel and her friends, I don’t think that democracy can be imposed from without. Furthermore, a more humble foreign policy on the part of the U.S. would probably go a long way toward making us safer. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s about to happen anytime soon, even if the Democrats regain the majority in one or both houses of Congress. They don’t have the guts to follow through on their rhetoric, nor do I think they really believe what they say.

This was a great column that made me think about the similarities of this adventure to other government boondoggles. It is true that doing for people what they could do for themselves weakens their own initiative and resolve, and should only be undertaken when you are intimately familiar with the extant circumstances and can exert some control over the intervention.

Thanks for a great article.

Sincerely,

Antonio Germano

By: jm

jm — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:26:36 +0000

Wonderul article! the waste of resources(now $100 billion/yr of our money)in iraq is criminal. you are a fantastic writer

By: concha

concha — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 15:58:50 +0000

Ms. Mercer,
You are a wonderful writer!
Thanks again for your elegant, intuitive prose.

By: Stephen W. Browne

Stephen W. Browne — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 13:47:02 +0000

“It’s a big if, but if indeed we’ve subsidized “freedom” for Iraqis and fought their battles—then we’ve also increased their impotence and diminished their initiative.”

An excellent point which, sadly, also applies to the West Europeans to a large degree.

And note that in both cases the side effect is a virulent hatred for the most potent power with the most social initiative – America.

It’s not that I disagree with your analysis, quite the contrary. It’s that tyrannical states (or failed states) are never content to be left alone to stew in their own fetid effluvium, they will always be a threat to more successful and freer states, it’s the nature of the beast.

By: james huggins

james huggins — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 04:24:14 +0000

To Tiarosa; I feel your pain, but your pain is going to be greater and in a different place if and when the democrats get back in total control. As I said before, a lousy situation.

By: Joseph M. Booth

Joseph M. Booth — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 02:02:51 +0000

Ilana, I agree that the Iraq debacle has done more to expose the incoherence of "conservatism" than the mishandling of the Foley fiasco. The words conservative and liberal no longer have a political meaning in my opinion. I can only imagine how Andrew Sullivan--who supported the incursion into Iraq to spread "democracy," increasing gasoline taxes, and keeping the death tax--will define conservatism in his upcoming book on the subject. Something tells me your interpretation is far more accurate and realistic. [Thanks, but these phonies seem to get the book deals and are still considered America's philosopher-kings.]

By: Martin Daniel Berrow

Martin Daniel Berrow — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:32:38 +0000

It is a terrible move to even consider supplying Abbas with 3000 new M-16 rifles along with 1 million rounds of ammunition. Abbas told Condilezza Rice that he need this to keep Hammas in check. Abbas is no different than Arafat, except in name & face only. He cannot, in no way be trusted. The Bush administration say’s it will go after terrorists where ever they are. Well, they are right next door to Israel. Why is this even being considered? Martin..

By: tiarosa

tiarosa — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:55:19 +0000

Sorry, Mr. Huggins, I no longer care two cents for thwarting the Democrats – at least not by voting (R). I’ve had enough of being pimp-slapped by the Repugnican leadership.

By: james huggins

james huggins — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:15:41 +0000

The Republicans are not and have not been conservatives for some time, if they ever were. We must remember two things: 1) Next to the democrats Bozo the Clown coming out of a chimpanzee love-in looks conservative.
2) We live in a country where a sizeable number of people actually thought Ross Perot was a Conservative.
In other words, not many Americans really know what a Conservative is and would be scared witless by the hatchet job thats sure to be done by the MSM if one actually ran for office. As we are destined to remain a two-party country we have to make the best of a lousy situation and try to thwart the democrats any way we can.

By: Boomer

Boomer — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:28:53 +0000

Ilana,
I second what Ted has so rightfully observed in his comments that you have succinctly and wonderfully stated the case that Iraq is wrong from so many angles. Near the end of your article you said, “Finally, there’s the matter of persisting in what is impossible to accomplish.” I’d like to observe along with this statement that America has been through one mid-term and one presidential election and is now coming up on a second mid term election since 9/11, and that the Republicans always speak of the fact that only they can keep America safe. This justifies their war in Iraq, a “long, long, war, that may last a generation.” This conveniently allows them to keep winning the national elections because America’s safety naturally trumps any other issue. Meanwhile, “war” is conducted in Iraq with no coherent strategy other than the misguided attempt at creating a “democracy” in a place where, as you rightly stated, it has no chance of succeeding. This begs the question as to why 150,000 American soldiers are really in Iraq. Again, great column Ilana.