What is victory anyway neo-cons?

Anyone familiar with site for the last few years know that I have been a strong opponent of the Iraq War. Since I am unable to do all the research necessary, I have depended on some phenomenal bloggers and intellectual giants such as William f. Buckley Jr. Along the way, my thinking has been shaped more and more around Libertarian thinking, as expressed by the honorable Ron Paul and the great scholar R.J. Rushdoony.

Establishing arguments contra war has not always been as easy as it is today. Nowadays, the most fervent war-supporting Republicans have begun to express serious doubts about the president’s war policy. After all, when the ship has been sinking for so long, ((By long I mean four years)) even the crew will jump, though their captain may wish to die honorably. Of course, there are still those who will die on their loyalty graveyard. They will fight to the end though they may feel their fight is more about status than morality. They will fight to the end at the expense of other children’s blood, not their own.

These die-harders still claim that we need to stay until “victory” is accomplished;  “victory” of course, is never defined. This is why I am glad Dan Phillips continues to write stimulating blogs that forces neo-cons to truly define their terms. Dan Phillips argues that supporters of the war will constantly use phrases like “we cannot leave until we achieve ‘victory;’ or “we cannot cut-and-run because that will mean that we have surrendered to our enemies.”I must confess that though I have believed for very long that the concept of “victory” in the lips of neo-cons is always destined to failure, I have not challenged what exactly they meant by the idea and how irrational it really is. Dan Phillips emerges to challenge and reveal the absurdity of it all when he poses these questions:

Does victory mean toppling Saddam? Done. Does victory mean ensuring Iraq doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction? Done. Does it mean a stable and Western style democracy in Iraq? Good luck with that. Does it just mean a stable but perhaps not democratic Iraq? Good luck with that as well. Does it mean modernizing and westernizing all of the Middle East? Does it mean stamping out all vestiges of “Shari’a-observant Islam” or more crudely put, wiping out “Islamo-fascism.” Most War on Terror supporters I have talked to cannot give a coherent answer. Instead they resort to talking points and boiler-plate accompanied by foot-stomping and eye-rolling.

The level of political discussion began with talks about WMD’s and now they have turned to “we must not leave, though we admit the war was a mistake.” What keeps us in Iraq is the stubbornness and unconstitutionality of a president who still has not given a definition of “victory” without changing his mind a month later.

Imperialism never admits failures; they persist because as Ron Paul has mentioned time and time again: “War is the health of the state.” If the imperial endeavor ceases, the state then ceases to control your money and your lives. If the state continues to wage war, then your life is back in their hands. So, what is victory anyway but the unstable and rhetorically mindless meandering of tyrants.

About Uri Brito

I am the Pastor of Providence Church (CREC) in Pensacola, Fl.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to What is victory anyway neo-cons?

  1. Pingback: University Update - Ron Paul - What is victory anyway neo-cons?

  2. Uri:

    Not sure if I’m a neocon, pal. I’m merely a soldier/chaplain.
    But I wonder what “defeat” overseas looks like, for us, and for our enemies. And what will that mean for Janice and her generation? That, among other things, drives me in OUR generation.

  3. Uri Brito says:

    Hey, Kenneth. I pray all is well with you and your family.
    In my opinion, we have already lost when we went in. So, defeat has already occurred when we set aside the Constitution by granting the president the authority to declare war.
    Secondly, removing our presence from the Middle East may be a healing process for the world, especially the West. Though, I agree it is hard to undo 50 plus years of American involvement in Middle Eastern politics. I agree with Reagan who once said: ” I learned very quickly the mindlessness of Middle Eastern politics.”
    Thirdly, we must think through this in terms of Christian regeneration. Before Saddam, many Christian missionaries had free access in the country; post Saddam, we have essentially lost all our influence in the Iraq. We need a stable Middle East so the gospel may triumph there. How can they believe if they have not heard?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s