Conservatives question if Iraq is a 'necessary and just' war.

- This is a very interesting article from the American Conservative: http://www.amconmag.com/10_21/iraq.html

- This article goes a long way in dispelling the idea that all conservatives back the Bush* Doctrine of preemptive war in Iraq and other places. It also includes a quote from Pat Buchanan (of all people) who states that the conservative movement has been 'hijacked' by the likes of the 'PNACers'.


"The conservative movement has been hijacked and turned into a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology, which is not the conservative movement I grew up with." - Pat Buchanan, NY Times, September 8, 2002

- Excerpts from the article:


"Yet even these grave considerations should not take priority over questions of principle: do we have a right to wage preemptive war against Iraq to overthrow its regime? Would this be a necessary and just war? What long-range effects would it have on the international system? If the answers to these questions make this truly a necessary and just war, Americans ought to be willing to make sacrifices and undergo risks for it.

On these critical issues the administration has so far won by default. The assumption that a war to overthrow Hussein would be a just war and one that, if it succeeded without excessive negative side effects, would serve everyone’s interests has gone largely unchallenged, at least in the mainstream. The administration’s justification for preemptive war is the traditional one: that the dangers and costs of inaction far outweigh those of acting now. Saddam Hussein, an evil despot, a serial aggressor, an implacable enemy of the United States, and a direct menace to his neighbors must be deposed before he acquires weapons of mass destruction that he might use or let others use against Americans or its allies and friends. A few thousand Americans died in the last terrorist attack; many millions could die in the next one. Time is against us; once Hussein acquires such weapons, he cannot be overthrown without enormous losses and dangers. Persuasion, negotiation, and conciliation are worse than useless with him. Sanctions and coercive diplomacy have failed. Conventional deterrence is equally unreliable. Preemptive action to remove him from power is the only effective remedy and will promote durable peace in the region.

This essay proposes to confront this case for preemptive war on Iraq head on. My argument stresses principles and long-term structural effects rather than prudence and short-term results. It rests not on judgments and predictions about future military and political developments, which I am not qualified to make, but on a perspective missing from the current discussion, derived from history, especially the history of European and world politics over the last four centuries. Rather than criticizing the proposed preemptive war on prudential grounds, it opposes the idea itself, contending that an American campaign to overthrow Hussein by armed force would be an unjust, aggressive, imperialist war which even if it succeeded (indeed, perhaps especially if it succeeded), would have negative, potentially disastrous effects on our alliances and friendships, American leadership in the world, the existing international system, and the prospects for general peace, order, and stability. In other words, a preemptive war on Iraq would be not merely foolish and dangerous, but wrong."


- It's not just 'liberals' who think the 'war' in Iraq is unnecessary and unjust.

I've seen similar things posted on antiwar.com for much of the past year, but I have no idea how prevalent such feelings are.

...read the entire article...which nicely debunks Bush's* reasons for attacking Iraq and questions the Doctrine of preemptive war.

I think I only like you because you ran against poppy. But I know you are a dedicated Nixon man, not the right-winger like Buchan. We could use a little more like you in this administration.

The main reason I left the Republican Party is that it had lost all sense of loyalty to the American people and supplanted it with duty to its corporate donors. I agree with Pat Buchanan's assessment of the Iraq invasion: Iraq neither attacked us nor posed a direct threat to our national safety therefore this is an unjust war. The Neo-Cons in charge have absolutely no concept of patriotism or loyalty to the American people. They perform acts of economic treason by actively displacing American workers and encouraging the hemorrhage of jobs moving abroad.

...because it's a very minor part of the story.

- The surprising part is that this article comes from a very 'conservative' source and presents a sound argument against the Bush* Doctine.

- The Republicans would have you believe that all conservatives are on Bush's* side regarding this issue. That's simply not true.

There is no evidence that he took off the yellow-shirt america-first aproach and disavowed classism and racism but he is causing static for the Neo Cons, sounds like a nasty right wing cat-fight, regardless of who "wins" they loose.

.... and is able to appeal to the true fiscal conservatives in the republican party. Yes, Pat B. is at times opinionated, and occassionally verges on being obnoxious and perhaps even offensive. But, friends, we need to remember the "divide & conquer" tactics of the enemy. Buchanan helped send daddy bush to pasture ... and he may help in the upcoming defeat of george w.

does this mean that the wars in Kosovo and Bosnia are immoral? They didn't really threaten our National Security.

and not unilaterally. That is the difference.

destabilize Europe. It was, and still is in our interest to have a stabile Europe.

BTW, welcome to DU.

edited because... oh wait, I don't need to explain myself.

Still, he makes a much better journalist than he does a political candidate. I liked Buchanan and Press and was not at all surprised to see that it went off of the air as MSNBC continued it's Fox-like makeover.

...probably weren't meant for him.

They'll still vote for Bush next November.

... the question you asked is SO IMPORTANT for us to understand! I will use my late Grandfather as an example: WW2 vet. His picture used to be on the cover of the US Marine training manual. Loved America. Could quote the Constitution in its entirety, by heart. Tough man. If there was an attack on America, you get behind him. If he were here today, he would puke at the thought of bush calling himself a conservative. He'd consider bush wearing the power ranger outfit on the ship as offensive as flag-burning. He'd find Dean interesting, in a Harry T-type of way. But he'd vote Clark. And there are a lotta men like him out there.

I can't find a date on it. The author talks of the war as a prospect.

Either way, interesting artcile. It articulates many of the anti-war arguments we were hearing from "those damn cowardly librals" before the war.

...to the Bush* administraton...which of course puts it after 2000.

- There was also a group of 'conservative' businessmen who took out a full page ad in a national newspaper before the 'war'...pretty much saying the same thing: that an attack on Iraq would be immoral and stinking of 'empire'.

- The Bushie media has been successful making it appear as if only 'libruls' oppose this war...but many 'traditional' conservatives oppose it as well.