Ann Coulter defends war-questioning Michael Steele’s Republican bonafides, and demands the immediate resignation of neocons Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol.
Republicans used to think seriously about deploying the military. President Eisenhower sent aid to South Vietnam, but said he could not “conceive of a greater tragedy” for America than getting heavily involved there.
As Michael Steele correctly noted, every great power that’s tried to stage an all-out war in Afghanistan has gotten its ass handed to it. Everyone knows it’s not worth the trouble and resources to take a nation of rocks and brigands.
Coulter couches her argument in a condemnation of Obama’s (formerly?) stricter rules of engagement, along with a canned and worn out justification for Bush’s War on Iraq. But pandering aside, this is an antiwar column.
Most boldly, Coulter ridicules the notion that it is patriotic for Americans to support all of their government’s wars.
But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.
What if Obama decides to invade England because he’s still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?
I greatly prefer hearing the peace argument delivered with a sense of moral import. However, it makes perfect sense for Coulter to oppose the war purely on national self-interest. Indeed, that’s the only antiwar argument ex-Bush supporters can accept while saving moral face.
Anyway, good for Ann. Clearly, it’s becoming socially acceptable for Republicans to oppose Obama’s wars. Is this progress or mere partisanship? Time will tell.