I’m kind of a neo-con. Kind of. I have no qualms about using overwhelming military force in defense of US interests. I’m not a GWB kind of neo-con, because I would have flattened any neighborhood in Baghdad (or any other city) where our forces took fire and I would have reduced Fallujah to rubble about the size of my little toe nail and paved over that. I prefer a “kinder, gentler” kind of war where our troops take less hostile fire because the price is too high, and I don’t believe in the concept of a “civilian” in Middle Eastern fight.
So, bottom line, I have no issues with bombing Syria into the stone ages. However, I have real issues giving Barack Obama Congressional permission to do it.
Yeah, but if that is your position on making war, you aren’t a neocon at all.
Keep in mind who neocons actually are: They are liberals who are willing to make war – but only to spread democracy. They think we have some sort of altruistic responsibilty to bring democracy at the point of a bayonet to those parts of the world where such notions of democracy not only don’t exist, but are actively, even violently, resisted.
The use of overwhelming force to defend the U.S. from our enemies is not a neocon notion, it is a conservative one – in the paleo sense of conservatism.
The prissy neocons are the ones who go to war and then lose because they are, underneath it all, appalled by warfare, and seek to impose upon it the sort of rules (and rules of engagement) that guarantee an eventual loss.
In that sense, President Progtard is a neocon. Which means I don’t want him anywhere near a war involving America. Because neither he, nor the neocons on the other side of the fence like McCain, have any notion of how to go about actually winning one.