March 20, 2008
I see I’m not the only paleo rooting (albeit not voting) for Obama. Here‘s Andrew Bacevich in The American Conservative:
“So why consider Obama? For one reason only: because this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival.
“To appreciate that possibility requires seeing the Iraq War in perspective. As an episode in modern military history, Iraq qualifies at best as a very small war. Yet the ripples from this small war will extend far into the future, with remembrance of the event likely to have greater significance than the event itself. How Americans choose to incorporate Iraq into the nation?s historical narrative will either affirm our post-Cold War trajectory toward empire or create opportunities to set a saner course.”
“The neoconservatives understand this. If history renders a negative verdict on Iraq, that judgment will discredit the doctrine of preventive war. The ?freedom agenda? will command as much authority as the domino theory. Advocates of ?World War IV? will be treated with the derision they deserve. The claim that open-ended ?global war? offers the proper antidote to Islamic radicalism will become subject to long overdue reconsideration.”
Bacevich continues: “Give the neocons this much: they appreciate the stakes.” Us paleos, as per usual, apparently do not. Which is why the former still retain control of the GOP, in spite of the complete failure of their political program of perpetual war and “presidential” monarchism.
I would note that a previoius TAC article, attacking Obama, was written by a “former” Trotskyite, Brendan O’Neill, whose “Revolutionary Communist Party” is the British equivalent of our own “former” Trots-turned-”Trotskycons.” ‘Nuff said!
Daily updates with TM’s latest
