Global tensions are currently running very high and for good reasons. People are watching the war in Gaza closely while increasingly bold attacks by Iran-backed militants are growing more common. Concerns are being expressed that the situation could escalate into a broader war in the Middle East, potentially drawing in the United States along with our allies and adversaries. The Biden White House has thus far taken a stance intended to prevent that possibility at all costs. But over at Townhall, our colleague Kurt Schlichter makes a different case this week. With his tongue only partially in his cheek, Kurt plays off of an old John Lennon tune from the Peace and Love, hippy era, writing, Conservatives, Give War a Chance.
It seems bizarre that I have to tell fellow conservatives this, but it’s sometimes OK to go to war. We’re fighting right now, and some cons about our current armed conflict are up in arms. But war is not inherently wrong. War is sometimes necessary. Sometimes it’s not. And sometimes, a war is poorly run. For example, in America, that “sometimes” is pretty much the entire last 30 years. But that does not mean that war is never an option. Sometimes it’s necessary. Conservatism is not pacifism with lower marginal tax rates.
Again, I don’t know why I have to say this, but I do. There is a strain of modern conservatism that believes all war is inherently wrong and done solely for the sake of corporations and blah blah blah blah blah. I get the cynicism. I deployed a couple of times. But this idea that there is nothing worth fighting over outside our borders is childish. It’s not conservative. It’s just lame. And people should stop thinking it.
Now, there are plenty of wars around the globe we should not want to be a part of. In fact, staying out of wars should be the default. We should not get involved in a war unless a demonstrable American interest is at stake and we have the will and capacity to win. If we don’t, we must stay the hell out. But if those conditions are met, we need to be ready to fight.
While I’m not here to throw my weight behind this idea 100%, Kurt makes some very important points. It’s a long essay, but it’s definitely worth reading in its entirety. He cites three wars that are currently unfolding and the various rationales for the United States to either be directly involved or steer clear of them as much as possible. If you were under the impression that there were only two wars currently underway, you’ll really benefit from reading the linked editorial.
The first war is the one in Ukraine. He sets forth some harsh truths and realities that everyone, particularly conservatives should come to grips with if they haven’t already. Vladimir Putin is the bad guy in that war and nobody should be taking his side. But there are two other facts that must be dealt with. First, there are some bad people on both sides of the battle lines. We’ve written here at great length about the corruption that exists inside of Zelensky’s government. That doesn’t excuse the Russian invasion, but it’s a reality. Second, and more important is the increasingly undeniable reality that Russia is going to win that war. Perhaps it won’t happen this week or this month, but the end is coming and it doesn’t end well for Ukraine. There is no rational argument for America to jump into that battle. There is no “demonstrable American interest is at stake,” as Kurt puts it. But we could be doing far better. We need to back away from the untenable current policy of “100% victory for Ukraine at any cost” (particularly when that cost is measured in Ukrainian bodies and American tax dollars) for “as long as it takes.” The United States should assume its traditional role as a peacemaker, nudging the two sides toward a settled truce while recognizing that Russia is going to hold onto some of Ukraine’s land and we’ll just need to redraw the maps.
Then there is the war in Gaza. Again, there is no defensible argument for American boots to be on the ground there. You might make the argument that there is a demonstrable American interest at stake because Israel is a tried and proven ally of America, unlike Ukraine, and also unlike Ukraine, Israel has the motive and ability to defeat Hamas and win. They don’t need us to fight their war for them and have said so repeatedly. We simply need to continue to support them without wavering as much as we possibly can.
That brings us to the third war. That would be the war between the United States and Iran. As Schlicter argues, it would be a fool’s errand to try to claim that we’re not already at war with Iran and have been since at least 1979. Thousands have died. They do their fighting almost entirely through proxies, but the dead don’t take any comfort from that. It’s an undeclared war, but it’s a war nonetheless. And now that three more of our soldiers have been killed, perhaps it’s time to bring that battle home to roost directly at Iran’s doorstep. I haven’t been willing to go that far up until now, suggesting just this morning that perhaps a large strike on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard outside of their country would be more appropriate. But that would maintain the status of the proxy war. Is it time to pull the trigger, both figuratively and literally?
Perhaps. But even if it is, rushing into a war without the proper plans and preparation is nothing more than an invitation to disaster. We would need to be prepared to do whatever it takes to achieve victory and to deal with the consequences afterward. The existence of a demonstrable American interest at stake is clear. We’ve been attacked repeatedly and with deadly force. But going to war will have consequences and the American public would have to be prepared for those.
Even more important than having a plan to get into a war is the critical need for having a plan to get out when our objectives have been achieved. As we were informed by the indispensable Powell Doctrine, you don’t go into a war without being able to define when you have won and how you will exit. We should reject any course that leads us toward yet another “forever war.” And we shouldn’t pretend that we need to “fix Iran” when it’s over. Defeating the enemy does not come with an obligation to help them rebuild, “plant democracy” or anything else. If you’re going to go to war, leaving the survivors to crawl out of the rubble and rebuild on their own is an option. In the case of Iran, it’s the only option.
But we must also consider who may come to Iran’s aid. Would anyone else jump in on their side and take on the United States directly? It seems unlikely, but that too needs to be one consideration and backup plans would need to be prepared in the event that we do this. It’s not a pleasant prospect to consider, but the world is getting awfully unpleasant lately. There simply may not be a way around it.
