Not even a relatively mild proposal to give our troops more rest at home before recycling them into this futile war in Iraq could break the GOP roadblock in the US Senate. WaPo reports: The vote offered the most vivid...
I've been reading this blog, and enjoying it a great deal, for several months now, but for some reason this post prompted me to finally raise an issue that's been in the back of my mind for some time now.
I would be the first agree that the Republican Party is far from perfect. There are a host of problems including a highly questionable commitment to the current strategy in Iraq. However, there still is an important difference between the Republican and Democratic platforms. While one can debate the actual impact, the Republicans, in general, espouse the right positions on issues of sexual morality and the culture of life versus the culture of death. In my opinion, both parties have been bought and paid for by big corporations and promote a consumerist/materialistic culture. Yet, at the end of the day, Republicans in power means fewer abortions, greater hope for preserving the institution of marriage, fewer embryos killed in research, and fewer abominable animal/human hybrids. Are the lives being lost in Iraq tragic? Certainly. But, I believe far more innocent lives would be lost through greater funding for abortion and embryonic research if we had a Democratic administration.
Given that fact, I do not understand the palpable feeling of Schadenfreude that permeates your recent posts about what you see as the imminent collapse of Republican power and the corresponding ascendance of the Democrats. Is the Iraq war all that matters? Should we be rejoicing in the fact that the hawks will get theirs in the upcoming election when it will almost certainly mean a corresponding boost to the culture of death? Ultimately, I can't help but get the impression that conspicuous failings by institutional leaders seem too obscure the bigger picture in your consideration of important issues.
Nell
September 20, 2007 12:03 PM
Do you really think the new Democratic president in 2009 is going to abruptly withdraw our troops? Not a chance. It's not, as you say, just the Republican president and legislators who own this war, America owns this war, and the Democrats will not want the shame (and worse) of withdrawal to have "Democratic Party" written all over it.
Marian Neudel
September 20, 2007 12:10 PM
Maybe this means the GOP has lost the military vote?
Brent
September 20, 2007 12:46 PM
Maybe this means the GOP has lost the military vote?
I don't think so. Our military is, after all, an all-volunteer force. As much as I and my colleagues would love more time home between deployments, we also understand what all that service entails. Those that don't want to stay in the military, for any reason (and chief among them is the number and frequency of deployments), can get out at the end of their contract.
Simon
September 20, 2007 2:14 PM
Do you really think the new Democratic president in 2009 is going to abruptly withdraw our troops? Not a chance.
Abruptly withdraw, no.
But the next President, Democrat or Republican, is surely going to have at the top of his or her agenda figuring out the most respectable exit strategy from Iraq.
No one -- not even John McCain -- is going to keep huge numbers of U.S. troops over there indefinitely in pursuit of Bush's chimera of a stable "Democracy".
AnotherBeliever
September 26, 2007 11:54 AM
I agree with the last poster. A Democrat will not pull troops out immediately. And a Republican will not be able to keep the number we currently have, or even the pre-surge numbers, up for long. In the end, it only a difference of degree.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Sign Up: Receive Crunchy Con in your in-box every day
I've been reading this blog, and enjoying it a great deal, for several months now, but for some reason this post prompted me to finally raise an issue that's been in the back of my mind for some time now.
I would be the first agree that the Republican Party is far from perfect. There are a host of problems including a highly questionable commitment to the current strategy in Iraq. However, there still is an important difference between the Republican and Democratic platforms. While one can debate the actual impact, the Republicans, in general, espouse the right positions on issues of sexual morality and the culture of life versus the culture of death. In my opinion, both parties have been bought and paid for by big corporations and promote a consumerist/materialistic culture. Yet, at the end of the day, Republicans in power means fewer abortions, greater hope for preserving the institution of marriage, fewer embryos killed in research, and fewer abominable animal/human hybrids. Are the lives being lost in Iraq tragic? Certainly. But, I believe far more innocent lives would be lost through greater funding for abortion and embryonic research if we had a Democratic administration.
Given that fact, I do not understand the palpable feeling of Schadenfreude that permeates your recent posts about what you see as the imminent collapse of Republican power and the corresponding ascendance of the Democrats. Is the Iraq war all that matters? Should we be rejoicing in the fact that the hawks will get theirs in the upcoming election when it will almost certainly mean a corresponding boost to the culture of death? Ultimately, I can't help but get the impression that conspicuous failings by institutional leaders seem too obscure the bigger picture in your consideration of important issues.
Do you really think the new Democratic president in 2009 is going to abruptly withdraw our troops? Not a chance. It's not, as you say, just the Republican president and legislators who own this war, America owns this war, and the Democrats will not want the shame (and worse) of withdrawal to have "Democratic Party" written all over it.
Maybe this means the GOP has lost the military vote?
Maybe this means the GOP has lost the military vote?
I don't think so. Our military is, after all, an all-volunteer force. As much as I and my colleagues would love more time home between deployments, we also understand what all that service entails. Those that don't want to stay in the military, for any reason (and chief among them is the number and frequency of deployments), can get out at the end of their contract.
Do you really think the new Democratic president in 2009 is going to abruptly withdraw our troops? Not a chance.
Abruptly withdraw, no.
But the next President, Democrat or Republican, is surely going to have at the top of his or her agenda figuring out the most respectable exit strategy from Iraq.
No one -- not even John McCain -- is going to keep huge numbers of U.S. troops over there indefinitely in pursuit of Bush's chimera of a stable "Democracy".
I agree with the last poster. A Democrat will not pull troops out immediately. And a Republican will not be able to keep the number we currently have, or even the pre-surge numbers, up for long. In the end, it only a difference of degree.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.