Have Republicans/Conservatives Lost their Appetite for Foreign Intervention?

[Infohawk]

I think most of us remember, even on this forum, in the early 2000s that the Republicans wanted to intervene just about everywhere. American intervention was seen as a positive force for change and something that benefited America.

Do we all agree that doesn't seem to be the case anymore? I hear complaints about intervention in Libya and there is a general sense across the board that we should be withdrawing from many theaters.

If so, isn't this a good thing for the Republican party? I can see more independents and even Democrats voting Republican if this part of the platform is abandoned.

 

[Atreus21]

Well, it is pretty damned expensive.

 

[RabidMongoose]

No, they'll be fine with foreign intervention when they are in power. I'm fine with that if it means keeping places that are prone to genocidal activity in check.

 

[woolfe9999]

I think most of us remember, even on this forum, in the early 2000s that the Republicans wanted to intervene just about everywhere. American intervention was seen as a positive force for change and something that benefited America.

Do we all agree that doesn't seem to be the case anymore? I hear complaints about intervention in Libya and there is a general sense across the board that we should be withdrawing from many theaters.

If so, isn't this a good thing for the Republican party? I can see more independents and even Democrats voting Republican if this part of the platform is abandoned.

Are you sure that republicans have "lost their appetite for intervention," or is it just that the administration now responsible for the intervention is a D rather than R?

 

[piasabird]

There is the argument also that we can not fight a war on 3 fronts. Besides being expensive, it stretches resources such as air power, logistics, and manpower too thin. You would think as mush as people in the media had an obsession with people being killed in the Iraq War, and Afghanistan, that they would not be willing to start yet another war in the middle east. Let O'Bammah send some of his relatives to die if he is such a warmonger. How many liberals are willing to go die in a war in libya?

 

[Infohawk]

Are you sure that republicans have "lost their appetite for intervention," or is it just that the administration now responsible for the intervention is a D rather than R?

I am mostly asking the question. I don't really hear any rhetoric about intervention like I used to and it strikes me as possible that many Republicans see that the financial costs were not worth it. Some neoconservative organizations folded a few years ago.

Let's say Romney were elected. Would he really want to spend political capital to start a new war or send more troops to Iraq or Afghanistan? I would see him letting those countries go and trying to blame Obama for any unrest in those countries.

(And although people will suggest it, I don't think Obama is that hungry for intervention. He's about to decrease troops in Afghanistan and he hasn't tried to up the stakes in Libya.)

 

[woolfe9999]

I am mostly asking the question. I don't really hear any rhetoric about intervention like I used to and it strikes me as possible that many Republicans see that the financial costs were not worth it. Some neoconservative organizations folded a few years ago.

Let's say Romney were elected. Would he really want to spend political capital to start a new war or send more troops to Iraq or Afghanistan? I would see him letting those countries go and trying to blame Obama for any unrest in those countries.

(And although people will suggest it, I don't think Obama is that hungry for intervention. He's about to decrease troops in Afghanistan and he hasn't tried to up the stakes in Libya.)

The republicans will never abandon their campaign rhetoric painting the democrat as "weak on terrorism." They will also never agree to any significant cuts to defense (Ron Paul is singularly excluded from this, obviously.) Demogagury of "the enemy," whether it is USSR ("Evil Empire") or terrorism is too politically useful.

Granted, interventionism is arcing toward being slightly less popular right now, principally because of the monetary cost. However, any republican who leans away from militarism will get roasted in the GOP primary.

 

[Fern]

IMO, yes. With the economy and debt I think the appetite is gone.

I also think even Repub-types think this stuff is dragging on far too long. I think only the staunchest of neocons is into nation building, not so much your average conservative type.

Lately I've been thinking that Ron Paul has been having an influence on this topic; that more-and-more Repubs are coming around to his way of thinking.

I also wonder if Obama's Libyian adventure has had an influence. They were absolutely no threat to us, and many wonder if the rebels are mostly just AQ. And of course, the whole "we're killing people to save lives" thing is out-the-window after Obama announced our goal is Qaddafy's removal and then refused any talks for a ceasefire. Really, what's the fuggin point of this Libya thing? What's in it for the USA?

I've seen more Paleocons in Congress stepping forward to challenge the neocons.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

IMO, yes. With the economy and debt I think the appetite is gone.

I also think even Repub-types think this stuff is dragging on far too long. I think only the staunchest of neocons is into nation building, not so much your average conservative type.

Lately I've been thinking that Ron Paul has been having an influence on this topic; that more-and-more Repubs are coming around to his way of thinking.

I also wonder if Obama's Libyian adventure has had an influence. They were absolutely no threat to us, and many wonder if the rebels are mostly just AQ. And of course, the whole "we're killing people to save lives" thing is out-the-window after Obama announced our goal is Qaddafy's removal and then refused any talks for a ceasefire. Really, what's the fuggin point of this Libya thing? What's in it for the USA?

I've seen more Paleocons in Congress stepping forward to challenge the neocons.

Fern

Which of the cadre of GOP candidates for POTUS will run on an anti-war, non-internventionist platform, other than Paul? Please do tell.

 

[Engineer]

IMO, yes. With the economy and debt I think the appetite is gone.

If we would have put up a war tax to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (like I think we should have), the appetite would have been gone years ago and our account deficits and debt would have been lower overall. Want war, pay for it.

 

[Infohawk]

The republicans will never abandon their campaign rhetoric painting the democrat as "weak on terrorism."

Sure they won't. But I guess is what I'm getting as if they're done with massive interventions like Iraq. I mean Reagan was a hawk but did he have any similar massive wars?

 

[theeedude]

Republicans are hypocrites. Once you internalize that, everything else they do starts making perfect sense.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I think most of us remember, even on this forum, in the early 2000s that the Republicans wanted to intervene just about everywhere. American intervention was seen as a positive force for change and something that benefited America.

In the early 2000's we were chasing down the 'evil-doers' from 9/11.

It was like this all through the 90's too with Clinton. I don't think this is a party specific item. Clinton was all over the place with our armed forces.

 

[dullard]

This is a periennial flip-flop issue for the republicans. Here is George Bush in the 2nd presidential debate in 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vulcans):

“The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops,” Bush announced. “He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using troops as nation builders,” he clarified, expressing particular concerns about the Clinton Administration’s recent involvement in Somalia and Haiti, by telling Gore:
“I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be. We can help. And maybe it's just our difference in government, the way we view government. I want to empower the people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you.”“I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war,” Bush went on to explain, “I don’t want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don’t want to be the world’s policeman.”

Then Bush was the biggest nation builder and biggest proponent of foreign intervention. Now that a democrat is in office, suddenly, they don't want anything to do with intervention or nation building. They'll keep flip-flopping as long as presidents change parties.

 

[Fern]

Which of the cadre of GOP candidates for POTUS will run on an anti-war, non-internventionist platform, other than Paul? Please do tell.

Frankly, I'm not following all that closely. Also not aware the Repubs have all that many candidates yet. But from a quick google:

Romney is moving that way and has just come under heat for it.

Huntsman is calling for faster withdrawal from Afganistan.

Then, as you mention, there's Paul.

So, yes, I think it fair to say there's significant movement in that direction.

Fern

 

[hal2kilo]

If we would have put up a war tax to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (like I think we should have), the appetite would have been gone years ago and our account deficits and debt would have been lower overall. Want war, pay for it.

This and reinstituting the draft.

By the way I saw old "never gets it right" Bill Crystal on, I think it was Fox News Sunday, he still beating the old neo con can't get enough war drum. For someone who never gets it right, I can't figure out why anyone would ever pay to have him on their show. Never mind it was Fox.

 

[Kadarin]

Republicans are hypocrites. Once you internalize that, everything else they do starts making perfect sense.

The number one goal for Republicans is to perpetuate the system where money is funneled to the very rich. Everything else, all "ideals" and rhetoric, is secondary, designed to help them achieve their main goal.

 

[Infohawk]

In the early 2000's we were chasing down the 'evil-doers' from 9/11.

It was like this all through the 90's too with Clinton. I don't think this is a party specific item. Clinton was all over the place with our armed forces.

All presidents have little escapades like Grenada and Serbia, but I don't think I'll ever believe that a Democratic president would have gone into Iraq. Afghanistan, yes (and not necessarily for nation-building), but not Iraq.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hopefully Americans will think twice. I don't really care what party is involved. While it's true that Iraq was a pet project of the Republicans, almost everyone got behind it and pushed. We love to blow crap up a long as we can pay someone in the military to do it so we don't get our own hands dirty.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

All presidents have little escapades like Grenada and Serbia, but I don't think I'll ever believe that a Democratic president would have gone into Iraq. Afghanistan, yes (and not necessarily for nation-building), but not Iraq.

Your OP wasn't specific about the size of the military intervention. All presidents do this. I'm not sure that anyone but Bush would have gone to war with Iraq but there were a shit-load of Dems in the Congress that went along with it so again, not sure how this is a party issue.

It's easy to play the what-if game now. But back when this was all being debated the votes were pretty overwhelming.

Not that it justifies the end result or makes it right... I'm just saying.

 

[Infohawk]

Your OP wasn't specific about the size of the military intervention. All presidents do this. I'm not sure that anyone but Bush would have gone to war with Iraq but there were a shit-load of Dems in the Congress that went along with it so again, not sure how this is a party issue.

It's easy to play the what-if game now. But back when this was all being debated the votes were pretty overwhelming.

Not that it justifies the end result or makes it right... I'm just saying.

Wouldn't you agree that the base of the Democratic party was opposed to the war? I think there was a subset of the Republican party (Cheney neoconservative types) who were for this (not just Bush). I'm hoping that line of Republicans has died out and I think that might actually help the Republicans in the next election.

 

[Craig234]

Republican policies change quite a bit depending who's president.

 

[Generator]

The most important thing to a Republican is power. To achieve that power they will play the most absurd politics with drastic flip-flopping like we've seen lately. Of course its a good thing to end the wars, but its to late...Obama has been unleashed.

When the President had his inauguration he said its time to put the childish things away. The Republicans like the children they are will never stop playing politics. Therefore Obama has no choice to but to end these petty politics by engorging the federal beast into bankruptcy. The position of the President has so much power now that it will be to dangerous to leave it to the hands of a Republican. Within the next 16 months Obama must drastically change the country and the tool to do so will be bankruptcy.

Obama campaigned on hope and change. The change is coming, with every shitty Republican idea, Obama steals its and amplifies it, exasperates it into a coming bankruptcy. I guess the hope will be the country comes out the better for it.

As for Republicans and their petty politics. They won't win getting to Obama's left, even if its the noble thing to do. All roads, whether from the right or left lead are leading a drastic change in this country that we've never seen before.

 

[Infohawk]

The most important thing to a Republican is power. To achieve that power they will play the most absurd politics with drastic flip-flopping like we've seen lately. Of course its a good thing to end the wars, but its to late...Obama has been unleashed.

When the President had his inauguration he said its time to put the childish things away. The Republicans like the children they are will never stop playing politics. Therefore Obama has no choice to but to end these petty politics by engorging the federal beast into bankruptcy. The position of the President has so much power now that it will be to dangerous to leave it to the hands of a Republican. Within the next 16 months Obama must drastically change the country and the tool to do so will be bankruptcy.

Obama campaigned on hope and change. The change is coming, with every shitty Republican idea, Obama steals its and amplifies it, exasperates it into a coming bankruptcy. I guess the hope will be the country comes out the better for it.

As for Republicans and their petty politics. They won't win getting to Obama's left, even if its the noble thing to do. All roads, whether from the right or left lead are leading a drastic change in this country that we've never seen before.

I don't really see how any of this is relevant to this particular topic.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'll admit, needlessly as I'm sure many of you remember, to being supportive of Bush early on. My first year or two posting in P&N reflects that position.

It was later in 2006 where, for some damn reason, we were STILL in Iraq and Afghanistan that I began to conclude that our leaders were full of !@#$. Leaving our soldiers on the ground camped out behind enemy lines to be butchered by flash mobs, snipers, and IEDs is a crime against our men.

Our military leadership excels at costing the United States coin and blood, with no intention of engaging in a true military conflict. They leave the soldiers on the ground with suicidal orders to play police in a foreign and hostile surrounding. It's sheer lunacy! It angers me.

Our military is misused. They are a killing force, not a police force. The nations we are in can fight for their own safety and security – and if they ever lose that fight we’ll know who to kill upon our return.


The Democrats and Libertarians made excellent arguments that I took to heart. We are not the world’s police force and should not act as such. The Iraq war was a gigantic mistake of horrific consequences. The sort of disaster that makes you stop and think before accepting another middle east adventure.

It was a conservative blog in 2006 that convinced me just how bad our involvement in Iraq was. Then Democrats were fighting tooth and nail to stop the surge and wanted us to immediately withdraw our soldiers. They lost, the surge occurred, and was somewhat successful. Yet my position was changed. Surge or not, enter entering Iraq was a mistake. No matter how we leave that country later, I believe it’ll become a more religious and hostile regime. Iraq is a greater threat to us now than before the war.

In essence, I think the sum of all our efforts has been to dig a deeper hole. To create new enemies and to bolster old ones. We eliminated Iran’s only rival power in the region and now they are an unstoppable nuclear kingpin of Islamic terrorism. That is no great accomplishment, it’s a freaking disaster.


While this is no proper litmus test for engaging in military conflict, I’d like to remind you that we ourselves, in our wars, have gotten more of our men killed than died on September 11th. Over twice as many, and the number continues to climb. The wounded is much higher.

It goes to show you the price we pay, and for what? Our mission should have been accomplished, our soldiers returned home, and our costs much less. Yet our leaders continue to ‘nation build’ with our supply of coin and blood. They have mangled the purpose of our military to extol this additional cost on us all. For a purpose I never believed in. If we’re attacked, go in and kill our attacker. Then leave. It should be that simple.

With our leaders having a different plan, a far more costly plan, I will not and cannot endorse their electable wars. If there is a time of need when we need to use our military we’ll know it, but until that time comes our soldiers belong home with us. Safe from the damage our own leaders inflict upon them with bad choices.