GOP missing opportunity to become Anti-War party

by Samuel Gonzales, The Last Tradition

I may be going out on a limb here, but after years of war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan -- and now taking sides in a civil war in Libya -- the GOP is acting more like a “me too” party instead of drawing a clear distinction between themselves and President Obama.

Where is it written in stone that the GOP always has to be for war, any war, any time?

In the 1960s during Vietnam, the GOP was the anti-war party.

I think getting sucked into the conflict in Libya -- which by the way increases spending -- is a missed opportunity for the GOP to pivot and call for pulling our troops from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan and to include that in the argument for cuttting spending.

Let President Obama defend continuing the war if he wants.

The mood of the Middle East has shifted towards regime change which makes Afghanistan and Iraq redundant. The United States has spent enough blood and treasure in the Middle East and that’s exactly the argument the GOP needs to make now this time with a Democrat in the White House.

Stop being a bunch of “me toos” and start drawing bold colors.

Samuel blogs daily at The Last Tradition.

Related discussion: Memeorandum.


  1. Far too many of them are all to willing to get involved in this. It has made me mad. There is an article in WAPO today about how the Arab league is ready to pull its support for the mission.

    They wanted to save innocent life in Libya, they should have taken care of it themselves. The Saudis have an airforce.

  2. And where are the "antiwar" peace-nicks? All those screaming about Bush? Just another pass for Obama... Oh, because France has lead the way, it is some how not Obama's responsibility.
    But as much as the GOP is missing opportunity, the MSM once again has shown their bias!

  3. >And where are the "antiwar" peace-nicks?

    Attacking Libya is 100% unrelated to our national defense, so of course they're for it. It's the wars that can be argued to be protecting the U.S. that are the bad ones.

  4. This issue is very muddled. The Neocons love war for international self-sacrifice, being the worlds policeman and dying for the glory of the nation etc. Neoconservatism has dominated GOP foreign affairs for a while now. The Libertarians eschew all war, even war that's in self-defense. Ron Paul criticizes Isreal vis a vis the Hamas in Gaza! The Objectivists are advocating action only in the case of national self-interest, principally for self-defense. Yaron Brook at least has come out against action in Libya.

    Perhaps this conflict will force a better conversation on war theory, but I think the GOP is getting pulled in too many different directions to come to any consensus on it.

  5. This libertarian was fooled on Iraq.

    I won't get fooled again.

  6. Thanks Tim, for giving me a bigger platform on this issue the GOPis dropping the ball on, again!

  7. And as it goes... Yada, Yada, Yada.........etc.

    Look to... The only justification for military action.

    The Libyan issue does not fit the rational and ethical justification for US involvement.

    The opinion of one. The rational thought of millions.


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.