NEW YORK, September 3, 2013 — Certain events fundamentally change the course of a nation and a political party. The vast expansion of the federal government during both the Bush and Obama Presidencies launched the Tea Party movement. Likewise, the duration of the Iraq and Afghan war and the looming war in Syria may bring a rise to the anti-war right.
A little more than a decade ago, Republicans nearly unanimously voted in favor of a war that would bring the party to its knees. The unpopularity of that war led in part to a massive defeat in 2006 and the rise of President Obama in 2008.
The voices of the anti-war right were few and marginalized.
Columnists Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak were called “unpatriotic conservatives.” Only two of the six House Republicans would last after the 2006 Democratic landslide. The sole Republican Senator to vote against the war left the party in 2007 and endorse President Obama.
How things have changed.
In the wake of a war with Syria, many of the top conservative writers and pundits have turned from war hawks to suspicious pessimists, critical of another Middle Eastern war.
The coming vote to authorize a military strike is also given rise to the anti-war forces on the right.
Four Republican Senators have already come out as the first in the Senate opposing the military intervention. Three are members of the Tea Party Caucus in the U.S. Senate: Senators Rand Paul, Jerry Moran, and Mike Lee. Senator Moran stated, “America cannot afford another conflict that taxes our resources without achieving our goals that advance American interest.” The other is Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas.
Seventeen other Senators are leaning against a strike; eleven are Republicans. Ted Cruz, a potential nominee in 2016, is among this group.
In the House, nearly three times as many Republican congressman have stated they plan on opposing the conflict as have come out in early support. Sixty two House Republicans have stated they are either in total opposition or leaning that way.
That includes the Chairman of the Tea Party Caucus, Rep. Michele Bachmann who said she is “adamantly opposed to military intervention in Syria.” Another House member opposed is Rep. Jimmy Duncan, the sole remaining Republican Representative who voted in opposition to the authorization to go to war in Iraq.
Where is the antiwar left on the war? Mostly silent. Not even Vermont’s socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has come out in early opposition of a war with Syria.
Just a handful of the millions of left-wing Congressman who wanted to impeach President Bush on the grounds of the Iraq War are willing to even oppose President Obama.
Our Nobel Peace Prize-winning President has killed thousands of innocent children across the Middle East with his drone strikes as well as the antiwar left with his empty rhetoric.
The Republican Party needs to come out in total opposition of the attack in Syria. President Obama’s foreign policy has been schizophrenic at best and all possible outcomes spell a losing situation for these United States.
The new anti-war wing of the Republican Party must leave behind the foreign policy of President Bush. Republicans must cease being the “War Party” and become the “American Interests First Party.” We need to look for our own best interests and not be “in search of monsters to destroy” as John Quincy Adams put it.
This war is not our war.
America’s foreign policy cannot be to support overthrowing different world leaders in the name of egalitarian idea of global democracy. When did the United States become the lassies-faire version of the USSR?
Only fools go where angels fear to tread, and war is hell.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.