Why do real Conservatives hate Bush's war-mongering?

Answer 1

Afghanistan is a war of security. Iraq was a preemptive strike, so it is considered too interventionist, which goes against real conservative foreign policy. Nation building is not a classical conservative idea, but most modern conservatives seem to think opposite.

Answer 2

True conservatism, in the classical sense, believes wholeheartedly in an isolationist position with regards to international affairs. Secondly, it is a fundamental precept of conservatism, in its traditional incarnation, to view big government as detrimental to society.

Put simply, if it doesn’t directly effect us don’t bother with it, and we should keep government as limited as possible. Bush, has betrayed these foundational conservative policies by extending United States authority past its legitimate jurisdiction, and in the process, created a government apparatus that is larger than anything any so called “tax and spend liberal” could dream of. Bush has done the diametric opposite of what true conservatives would like for him to have done. Its no wonder they loath him and have abandoned the Republican Party.

Answer 3

Traditional conservatives are horrified by the mismanagement and radical amounts of money wasted on this misadventure, notwithstanding the loss of life and damage to national security. Worse, the military-industrial complex seems to be the driving force for using force first, and forgetting the diplomacy necessary for a long-term solution.

Eisenhower, a traditional conservative, warned us about this problem as he left office:

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Today, instead of pursuing Al-Qaeda and hunting them down like the criminals they are, we have wasted precious lives and incalculable resources in military operations that have yet to break the back of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

Now we face a the very real possibility of a virtual tsunami of new terrorists. All of them created thanks to thousands of "collateral damage" incidents. Here we fell right into Osama bin Laden's trap: he knew that a major attack like 9/11 would send America into a military frenzy. His plan was to weaken and bankrupt America by spreading the fight across the entire Muslim world.

Sadly, so far Bin Laden's plan has worked better than he could hope. True conservatives don't miss that fact.

Answer 4

Real conservatives do not beleive that it is in our country's interest to build nations, basically nation building is bad. They feel this war is a waste of money that could better have been used here to do stuff like improve airport security, secure our borders, reform social security or other domestic projects.

Answer 5

Real conservatives that hate Bush's "war-mongering" are not paying attention. The threat to economic prosperity is not Bush. It is terrorism.

Answer 6

Not a conservative but I would guess because it is weakening the country and serves no real purpose? Real conservatives are probably aghast at his free spending ways. Bush is certainly not fiscally conservative.

Answer 7

Response to the first answer -
Pat Buchanan
Robert Novak
George Will
David Brooks

Just to name a few...

The reason they don't support the war is simple - traditional conservatives have long been against what they call "nation building", and that's exactly what we're doing in Iraq. They see it as a waste of tax dollars and an obvious abuse of our armed forces.

Answer 8

Do they really? Why don't we hear from them? I know Chuck Hagel hates Bush's war-mongering policies but who else is in that catagory before it became popular?

Answer 9

Well, a lot of conservatives believe we really have no business in Iraq. Taking care of the issue should fall on the UN (if only they actually did their job).

Depending on who you ask, some conservatives feel we should be out of the UN altogether (and the IMF, World Bank, and NATO, to boot).

I'd certainly not prefer to be the world's police force, but we are.

Answer 10

What war mongering. We were attack by Islam. Islam sponsors terrorism.