|
|
The
Old Right's Quandary
"Old
Right" conservatives are suspicious of war,
which tends to expand government power. But there's
no way for America to isolate itself from terrorism
and weapons of mass destruction.
A dozen years ago, many conservatives in Virginia joined with like-minded people across the nation to question the advisability of committing the United States to armed intervention in Kuwait. Today, there are far fewer conservative voices opposing America’s military role in the same region. The reason, undoubtedly, is the shock of September 11, 2001.
The events of that day affected every American’s view of the world and this country’s role in it. The recognition that the United States could be attacked so savagely and on such a scale resulted in a general resolve among Americans to use force abroad that had not been witnessed since the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
On the left, only a small remnant, principally committed pacifists, opposed overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and attacking the al Qaeda terrorists it harbored. The large anti-war demonstrations that characterized the Viet Nam conflict simply never materialized.
On the right, the intellectual descendants of Robert Taft did not vigorously challenge the decision to invade Afghanistan and change the regime that had contributed to the terrorist attacks on the United States for years. The Taft wing, which has always been skeptical of foreign intervention and opposed to anything that resembled American imperialism, fell largely silent not because a Republican president was leading the effort, but the events of Sept. 11 had challenged their fundamental premises.
For decades, the Taft wing has argued that government uses crises to expand its power and size. War is one such crisis. Historically, military conflicts have resulted in dramatic spurts of government growth without any corresponding reduction in the size and intrusiveness of government when the conflicts ended.
The Old Right participated forcefully and actively in the debate over whether to commit American troops to push Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991. It was again galvanized in opposition to intervention in the Balkan conflict several years later.
During his 2000 campaign, President Bush often sounded Old Right concerns about military intervention and nation-building. But his thinking, too, was profoundly altered by the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Those attacks transformed what had been an academic discussion into an urgent debate about how best to protect America. The concept of asymmetrical warfare, which has been developed by terrorists determined to cripple, if not destroy, the United States, is no longer a matter left to foreign affairs experts and military planners. Responding to this new threat is now seen by most Americans as a life-and-death issue.
While the Old Right has seen considerable change in its thinking, the same cannot be said for mainline churches. As Michael Novak has argued, the ancient "just war" doctrine no longer fits the reality of weapons of mass destruction, state-sponsored terrorism and a worldwide network of suicidal agents bent on destroying the United States. Yet, leading religious figures condemn the attack on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as morally unjustified.
In the world after September 11, these condemnations are distressingly naïve. Believers can pray and appeal to world leaders to avoid war, but they cannot wish away the threat of Saddam Hussein’s regime to world peace and order. The only question is when peace-loving people will confront such a threat. If not now, then later and at an unspeakable cost.
-- March 24, 2003
|
|
