The War Party Spreads More Evil

Liz Cheney, the current nepotistic darling of the big-government Republicans, has been sent on a mission to spread disinformation about Michael Steele's honest and accurate conclusion that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable.

Cheney is calling for Steele's resignation because Steele dared to speak the truth to the world about the raison d'etre of the War Party. The great Ron Paul has come to Steele's defense, and Paul should be joined by all people who appreciate the truly destructive nature of war. Steele should also be assured that the Republicans are not a monolithic bloc of hateful troglodytes who cheer the latest episode of war to quench their bloodlust.

Of course, Steele is correct in his analysis. When was the last time you received a clear definition of "winning" from the politicians? When they come anywhere near such a definition, do their objectives strike you as attainable? Of course, not. As a basic political fact, Afghanis want no governmental export from the United States. Our governance is foreign to them and will ultimately be rejected by them. As our attempts to force our government on them are foolish and will never take, America has a convenient reason to stay in Afghanistan, forever, as we press our futile attempt to get them to accept the political system we'd wish they'd have.

America is now engaged in perpetual war for perpetual peace, as Vidal cautioned. We should all be more demanding of her politicians. We deserve answers to some basic questions: When can we stop the loss of American and Afghani life, and when can we stop the pointless expenditure of billions of dollars we squander to prosecute this exercise in futlity? In a more prickly question, do Americans value the loss of an Afghan life as equal to the loss of an American life?

This adoration of a standing military and perpetual war makes the Republican Party absolutely intolerable to those who advocate limited government and fiscal austerity and want to have America be thought of favorably in the world. At the close of WWII, America couldn't have been more revered in the world. Currently, however, we're a thug country, a dangerous bully, a country with a short temper that engages in wars for resources.

The Republican Party used to be a strongly anti-war party who counseled war only when the country was under attack. These pro-war advocates are not, in any way, "conservative." They're social meddlers on a global scale who preach limited government only toward domestic spending programs such as public transportation and welfare which are quite cheap, as government programs go, certainly as compared to war.

It's O.K. to be Republican and anti-war. If more Republicans demanded the end of the war and an end to our stationing of troops around the world, we'd make some progress toward reducing the deficit and debt. Further, the party that advertises itself as the champion of "limited government" might reclaim a bit of credibility on the subject.