If the American intervention into Libya’s civil war was puzzling beforehand, the president’s inability to coherently explain it during his address to the nation only made things murkier.

But if there is one thing this entire situation has reinforced, it is that the foreign policy agenda erroneously passed off as conservatism during the Bush years was anything but. After all, the language used by Barack Obama to justify his attack on Libya was unmistakably similar to George Bush’s reasoning for going into Iraq.

Conservatives who dismissed criticism of Republican foreign policy during the mid-2000’s as dissent voiced only by disenchanted left-liberals might now be thinking there was more to these critiques than they were willing to admit. In fact, the foreign policy positions taken by many of the Bush Republicans resulted in the U.S. military’s role being viewed as one of “spreading democracy” around the globe, a notion not rooted in our history and an idea historically associated with the American Left. This idea had nothing to do with conservatism, but amazingly was passed off as such during the post 9/11 years. If more Republicans do not wake up from this mind set, the United States will ensure its bankruptcy and currency collapse sooner rather than later.

In years past, it became conventional wisdom that most liberals were rhetorically opposed to the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, while conservatives were expected to fully support them. This much was apparent.

Anyone questioning the cost or wisdom of two simultaneous Middle East occupations was written off as a “liberal” no matter how impressive their small government credentials. In hindsight, this simply made no sense; true, many on the Left did oppose Bush’s foreign policy, but that was based on the simple fact that it was Bush’s foreign policy. And the conservatives who unflinchingly supported the Iraq occupation and mission creep in Afghanistan largely did so out of a commitment to the administration, not because the installation of democracy in the Middle East was some longstanding goal of American conservatism or something they particularly were dogmatic about.

The degree to which so many otherwise intellectually curious conservatives were willing to dismiss facts and shut down critical thinking skills was truly disappointing. That they were so willing to do so was illustrative of a movement which had lost touch with its intellectual moorings, damaged largely by a blinding hatred of Bill Clinton in the 1990s which led to the embracing of a president ungrounded in his political philosophy in the 2000s.

Equating conservatism with ambitious nation building projects in Iraq and Afghanistan caused confusion over what the ideology even stood for. Attempting to install a democracy overseas and rebuild the fabric of a society from the top down are actions requiring an autocratic, centralized government to have any hope of success. Liberals would be the natural allies of such attempts due to their willingness to embrace Orwellian bureaucratic planning and the lack of aversion they show to using government for drastic societal change. Conservatives have generally understood that civil society must develop organically, naturally recoiling at ambitious projects with hefty price tags.

But the shoe was on the other foot during the Bush years, as both sides selected their positions based primarily on which party was in power. The relative silence of many anti-war groups after the election of Barack Obama showed their agenda had much more to do with electing a Democratic president than with ending any particular war; the only wars the Left seems to oppose are those started by a Republican or not given the U.N.’s stamp of approval.

And each side’s view of the particular war we happen to be involving ourselves in at the moment is a constantly evolving phenomenon. Evidence of this is ample: many of the same conservatives who denounced Bill Clinton’s humanitarian Kosovo operation were either silent on or vocally supportive of  intervention done largely on the same grounds in Iraq; before being opposed to such a policy once again when done in Libya.

These contradictions occur because the positions taken on so many foreign policy questions are not done out of any underlying principle, but simply result from partisan cheer-leading.

When Republicans passed the ruinous Medicare Part D expansion, the same ‘conservative’ commentators who would have been howling nonstop had it  been a Democratic initiative were comparatively silent. We heard warnings of “socialism” for a solid year during the debate over Obama’s health plan, but George Bush’s own foray into governmental health care involvement was treated with kid gloves.

Scenarios like this one paint a clear picture of how partisanship for sport creates an obvious and self-perpetuating double standard. After all, both sides can always finger point and decry the other side’s hypocrisy to justify their own hypocrisy; this vicious cycle, though financially lucrative for television and radio hosts, has been ruinous to conservatism and deleterious for the country at large.

Any impartial observer should have two eyebrows raised by Obama’s willingness to continue Bush’s foreign policy actions and rhetoric. This should make it clear there was never anything inherently conservative about it to begin with. In fact, liberal internationalism was what was on display during the foreign policy of the Bush years, not the non-interventionism fostered by true, prudent conservatism. Barack Obama genuinely believes the federal government can and should be used to help people in spite of how much debt it rings up or abysmal its track record. So of course he sees nothing odd about intervening in Libya; indeed, his entire philosophy is predicated on government action.

Frankly, Barack Obama’s public policies were more similar to that of his predecessor than those with partisan blinders on would care to admit, and, viewed through this lens, our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan actually repudiated the very centralization of government power conservatives are taught to abhor.

Those in the Tea Party confessing concern about our budget can no longer be intimidated into unquestioning acceptance of the foreign policy status quo. Americans have repeatedly rejected the ideology which demonized anyone who questioned our overseas policies, and the skittishness which greeted the Libyan intervention further underscored this. The same kind of thinking that gives birth to our costly welfare state at home only causes more difficulty for our country overseas when carried to fruition on an international scale.

WHEREAS Libya poses no imminent and clear threat to the United States; and

WHEREAS the Congress of the United States has not declared war against Libya, or in any other way authorized the use of military force against Libya; and

WHEREAS the President has exceeded his authority under the Constitution of the United States, which reserves to Congress the sole power to declare war;

We, the National Committee of the Republican Liberty Caucus, hereby RESOLVE;

THAT the President has violated the War Powers Act, which requires him to notify the Congress of the United States of the imminent use of military force, so as to receive the assent of Congress to the use of military force in a timely manner;

THAT we declare our solidarity with those members of the Congress and citizens of the United States who have sought to avert U.S. involvement in a war in the Libya;

THAT we do not believe the U.S. should be involved in Libya militarily;

AND we call on all those who believe in the Constitution and respect the rule of law to demand an end to U.S. military intervention in Libya.

(Adopted unanimously by the RLC National Committee, March 22, 2011.)

See also: RLC Condemns U.S. Military Action Against Libya; March 24, 2011

The President of Bolivia and a political leader in Russia have launched a campaign to revoke Obama’s 2009 peace prize honor after the U.S. attack on Libya.

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia leader and Vice-Chairman of the State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky released a statement today calling for the Nobel Prize Committee to take back the honor bestowed on President Barack Obama in 2009.

Zhirinovsky said the attacks were “another outrageous act of aggression by NATO forces and, in particular, the United States,” and that the attacks demonstrated a “colonial policy” with “one goal: to establish control over Libyan oil and the Libyan regime.” He said the prize was now hypocritical as a result.

Bolivian President Evo Morales echoed the call: “How is it possible that a Nobel Peace Prize winner leads a gang to attack and invade? This is not a defence of human rights or self-determination.” Morales won the Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights in 2006.

Obama is also administering wars in two other nations, Iraq and Afghanistan. In his most recent attack on a foreign nation — Libya — he failed to present his plan to the United States Congress.

One of the primary reasons so many conservatives were willing to suspend disbelief during the Bush years and support our overseas wars was as a reaction against the rhetoric on the Left. Overseas occupations are things conservatives would traditionally oppose due to the exorbitant government spending and strong-armed central government planning required to carry them out. Conservative support seems to make even less sense when one considers that America has attempted to simultaneously carry out two large-scale occupations in a part of the world without a history of democracy. A traditional conservative foreign policy was demonstrated by men like former Ohio senator and “Mr. Republican” Robert Taft, who only favored intervening overseas when a direct threat to America was present. Sadly, many conservative stalwarts of the past would be erroneously labeled by today’s Republican Party as “liberals” for insufficiently militant rhetoric.

Of a matter of fact, liberals, who have a soft spot for utopian schemes, humanitarian nation building, and the notion that governments can force massive social change, would actually have been the natural backers of our projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. That the modern day Left has no real aversion to meddling in other country’s affairs is clearly demonstrated by Barack Obama’s willingness to intervene in Libya. The modern day, mainstream “anti-war Left” has little philosophical objection to overseas operations: just ones undertaken by a Republican or those not approved by the United Nations.

But for a decade both sides have switched roles, and this has everything to do with our country’s increasingly senseless partisanship. Upon sober self-reflection, many Republicans showed themselves willing to abandon their small government principles out of a need to cheer on the “R” team regarding the manner in which the War on Terror was carried out. Traditional conservatives should have been disgusted by our efforts at societal transformation in Afghanistan and Iraq, but instead they were its biggest fans. Meanwhile, groups like Code Pink felt required to oppose our wars out of a feeling of loyalty to the “D” team. Partisanship when done out of principle is part of the American tradition, but supporting or opposing policy based simply on the political party pushing it is bound to destroy any nation.

The relative silence of so-called “anti-war groups”, aside from a few genuine liberals such as Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich, upon Obama’s taking the oath of office revealed their agenda had little to do with opposing war. Sure, they hated it when it was Bush’s war, but were willing to acquiesce if not outright support it once their true objective, electing a Democratic president, was accomplished. The same sort of hypocrisy is found on the Republican side of the aisle where, for example, Republicans did everything they could to pass the costly Medicare Part D expansion when they were in power, only to yell about “socialism” when the other side attempted to impose their even more costly government health care scheme.

Contemporary conservatives and liberals largely support the positions they do much like a fan of Auburn would feel compelled to root against LSU. They are willing to overlook massive infractions on their side while calling out every mistake on the other; this is great in football, but leads to a nation-destroying cycle when done in politics. Most of the political positions both sides of the aisle take are not guided by any underlying principle, but instead by some sense of party loyalty and opportunism.

The same Republicans who opposed Bill Clinton’s intervention in the Kosovo conflict on humanitarian grounds were more than willing to support an invasion of Iraq a few short years later on, you guessed it, humanitarian grounds. As hard as it is for some to admit, had the Obama administration started the nation building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Republicans would have been the biggest opponents of the war and Democrats the biggest backers.

Republicans have a chance to break this cycle with the incoming Tea Party freshman. Anyone with actual intentions about cutting government cannot back the excursion into Libya, nor can they no longer be silent on the increasingly bleak Afghanistan situation. With a national debt approaching 15 trillion dollars and the lessons learned from two Middle East nation building operations, it would be the ultimate height of hypocrisy to speak of limited, constitutional government while having no qualms about sticking our noses into another Middle Eastern war.

There is something about the federalization of police authority that causes discomfort among those who adore America’s traditions. Whether it is from the perspective of such Hollywood films as “The Good Shepherd” and “Syriana” or the sort of critiques emanating from organizations like the John Birch Society, both ends of the ideological spectrum are wary to one degree or another of secretive federal organizations.

Unfortunately, the ultimate outcome of a threat like terrorism is, without fail, the enhancing of police powers wielded by central governments. Though the devastation caused by loss of human life as a result of terrorist acts is without equal, its second undesirable contribution to society is the mind set of surrendered liberty engendered among the broader population. Most of us recognize that we are far more likely to fork over freedoms to the government during times of crisis than times of tranquility.

All one needs to do is look at what happened to Russia after the 2004 Beslan School Crisis in North Ossetia. Although freedoms in the country were nothing to write home about beforehand, skirmishes with Chechen separatists have given birth to the sort of police state mentality terrorism fosters and men like Vladimir Putin have little ideological disposition to limit.

Looking at the United States after September 11th demonstrates the aftershocks destructive acts of terrorism generate. Since that day, such massive intrusions as the Patriot Act, invasive TSA pat downs, the introduction of pricey bureaucracies such as the Department of Homeland Security (a $40 billion plus annual budget and north of 200,000 employees), and the floating of such ideas as the Orwellian 2005 REAL ID Act have alarmed those who take personal privacy seriously.

Many senators and congressman have been puzzled as to why any citizen might balk at the notion of a national ID card. “It is disappointing to me that the Obama administration has chosen to put Americans at risk by having another delay in implementing Real ID,” Republican congressman Jim Sensenbrenner noted. Apparently forgetting to update his circa-2004 Republican National Convention talking points, Mr. Sensenbrenner appears intent on emerging victorious on “Survivor: Police State Conservative.” Surely he must recognize such fear based rhetoric, post-Tea Party, no longer works like a charm at getting conservatives to fall into line.

This act, which would have amounted to a federalization of national identification cards and storage of personal information, has been met with vigorous opposition in many states. States as politically diverse as South Carolina and Oregon have rejected it, and my home state of Louisiana became the 11th state to pass anti-REAL ID legislation in 2008. Americans feel something is a little off about even more centralization of power by an institution not immune from abusing it.

But one of the few good things about REAL ID has been this opposition shown by state legislatures and governors. Additionally, the revulsion toward it by groups on the left and right has been encouraging; some strange bedfellows were made during the course of advocating against its passage. We see the wisdom of our Constitution and Founding Fathers demonstrated when such steps are taken; citizens of an entirely consolidated nation (which we are not quite as of this writing) would have had little recourse to turn back what the central planners were bent on getting through. But, by utilizing de facto nullification of federal laws, enough resistance has been generated to throw a wrench in the implementation of this act.

The most recent extension of its compliance date to 2013 is an example of the government kicking the can down the road. Unwilling to tackle this issue now, they will simply delay the fight for a later date. Surely it is no coincidence that 2013 is just after a presidential election and happens to be the off year for congressional elections. Maybe we can hear more promises from allegedly civil libertarian Democrats to fight invasions of privacy, only to watch them fall into statist line afterward (see Obama-Guantanamo as well as Obama-Patriot Act. Case settled.)

Up to this point, this specific measure of statism has proven a bridge to far. Sadly, it likely would now be in effect had the states rolled over and refused to push back (this same willingness to fight is now producing hope for those of us who want to see Obama’s health plan overturned). Apparently Washington will do whatever it can get away with in the absence of sufficient protest; not exactly a glaring endorsement of our public officials’ integrity. Apparently they can produce a million regulations for us while simultaneously having zero regulation on their own appetites.

A reasonable person cannot help but ask if 95% of those in Washington are even familiar with the notion of state sovereignty or Jeffersonian republicanism. Watching CSPAN, it appears they might not be. Fortunately, at least a few in state legislatures and governorships still are.

(Editor’s Note: The RLC is helping you fight back against REAL ID; see this post.)

This is a very brief rebuttal to LewRockwell.com/Campaign for Liberty author Anthony Gregory’s blog post entitled “Republicans as Bad as Ever.” Gregory opines:

“On war, the most important issue. In the tenth year of a ridiculous, illegal, and completely counterproductive war of aggression, Justin Amash, a Michigan freshman Congressman with some libertarian leanings whom I was told to keep an eye on, joined the 97% of his party in the House voting against a completely reasonable and moderate plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

As an aside, this alone would have saved $100 billion a year. Another epic fail from the Tea Party.”

Congressman Amash, the second-youngest member of Congress and a keynote speaker at the 2011 Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention, defended his vote as follows:

Here’s the roll call for Amend. 232, which defunds Afghanistan ops. It was not a policy bill to end the war. I would support that. Instead, it cut funding to a level that Rep. Nadler (D-NY-08) claimed would allow for safe withdrawal. His word cannot be the final analysis for a new Rep., and it wouldn’t have been if I didn’t have 600 other amendments to review. I voted no. “Present” is for genuine procedural concerns.

Mr. Gregory made the same mistake that his LewRockwell.com colleague Laurence Vance made when Vance criticized the Republican Liberty Caucus in January. Mr. Gregory doesn’t understand how Congress works in the same way that Mr. Vance had little knowledge about the goals of the RLC. (Since then, Mr. Vance has learned more about us and even featured my article about Paul Ryan at his blog.)

A simple suggestion to those in the liberty movement: Please understand the topic you’re writing about before sharing your opinion. This will make you much more effective when trying to convince audiences of an opinion.

And, another suggestion: It’s more important to focus on the more than 400 members of Congress who do not share *any* libertarian principles than the 30 or so members who are actively working to preserve our country.

The politicians endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus are working to save our nation.

Let’s spend less time scrutinizing their votes and more time trying to either persuade or boot out the 400 politicians in Washington (and countless Administration bureaucrats) who have little concept of individual liberty or limited government.

On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the repeal of the military ban on gays in the military, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” My previous post explains today’s events in which the Senate passed the measure.

What has not been widely reported is that Republican Liberty Caucus Advisory Board members Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dr. Ron Paul of Texas both voted to repeal the discriminatory policy: see the House Roll Call on the bill.

The only other libertarian-leaning Republicans who voted to repeal “Don’t Ask” were U.S. Rep. John Campbell of California and U.S. Senator John Ensign of Nevada. All of the other Republican votes were from the moderate wing of the party.

Earlier this year, Dr. Cliff Thies released the RLC’s 2009 Liberty Index, in which Jeff Flake and Ron Paul topped the chart with the #1 and #2 scores, respectively.

An excellent vote from some great pro-liberty leaders!

Today the U.S. Senate voted on legislation that will allow for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a similar version of the bill and President Obama has said that he will sign DADT repeal into law.

Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the stand-alone repeal bill in the Senate. DADT was made a law seventeen years ago and is the only U.S. law that punishes people for simply telling the truth. Since the law went into effect, over 14,000 gay and lesbian service members have been discharged from our nation’s military simply because they were gay or lesbian. An estimated 66,000 gays and lesbians are currently on active-duty. Twenty-three studies over the past fifty years, including most recently a comprehensive study by the Pentagon, have concluded the same thing: that there would be no to minimal impact on force cohesion or unit readiness by allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military. Thirty-countries currently allow gays and lesbians to serve in their nation’s armed forces.

The repeal of DADT will happen only after certification by the President, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that policies have been written to implement repeal and compliance with these polices is consistent with military readiness. According to the Human Rights Campaign, DADT is not effective immediately and service members are still at risk of being discharged on the basis of their sexual orientation until certification occurs and an additional 60 days have passed.

Of the sitting Senators, the only past RLC-endorsed Senator who cast a vote in favor of repealing DADT was Senator John Ensign of Nevada. (Other moderate Republican Senators like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe also supported the repeal.)

On behalf of basic fairness and equal rights under the law, I applaud Congress for taking this important step.

IRAQ BY THE NUMBERS, from Stars and Stripes:
U.S. troops killed: 4,414
U.S. troops wounded in action: 31,897
Number of U.S. troop amputees: 1,135
Iraqi civilian deaths: 113,166
War’s operating cost: $747.6 billion
Per American: $2,435; Per Iraqi: $25,828
Estimate of the total cost of the war: $3 trillion
Cost of maintaining 50,000 troops from now to end of 2011: $12.75 billion
Cost of medical care and disability compensation for Iraq war veterans over their lifetimes: $500 billion.
_____________________________________________________

Commentary: Seven and a half years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the last U.S. combat brigade has departed. It took longer than the duration of World War II to get to this point.

Still, as many as 50,000 U.S. troops will stay behind to help train and support the Iraqi military.

This fact is not widely reported in the media despite that the last combat brigade exit has been reported.

Voters deserve to know the truth: the U.S. continues to finance — through taxpayer dollars (e.g., money we do not have) — the rebuilding of foreign nations while our own country faces problems with government spending, debt, and increasing financial obligations.

The solution is to stop rebuilding foreign countries and start rebuilding our own country.

It can be done, but it takes politicians with backbones and courage of their convictions.

That’s where our Republican Liberty Caucus-endorsed candidates come in.

Please support them today.

On Thursday the Republican Liberty Caucus released the following press release on Afghanistan and Michael Steele’s recent comments.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 8, 2010
CONTACT: Dave Nalle at 512-656-8011 or chairman@rlc.org

It’s time for Republicans to open a debate on the war in Afghanistan

When Chairman Steele brought up the war in Afghanistan he was talking about campaign strategies for Republican candidates, and broaching the possibility that some of them might not support a continued American presence in Afghanistan. Some Republicans have been shocked by this, but the Republican Liberty Caucus can assure the doubters that we have thousands of members and hundreds of candidates who share his doubts about the wisdom of expensive long-term military occupations and nation building programs. In particular, many question the practicality of dragging out the war in Afghanistan with no clear objective and little chance of any positive outcome at an unjustifiable cost to taxpayers.

“We haven’t always been impressed with Chairman Steele’s leadership in other areas, but in this instance it is refreshing that the leader of our party has shown he can sometimes think outside the box defined by those who irrationally reject any contrary views on foreign policy”, observed RLC board member Dan Sheill. “We wish he had stuck by his statement and not backed down so quickly.”

Chairman Steele was right to call this Obama’s war, because by choosing to continue it against all good sense the President has taken on responsibility for the costs and the consequences of the war. This creates an opportunity for Republican candidates to stand up for fiscal responsibility, smarter foreign policy and more efficient use of the military by running against Obama and his war. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War because he understood that the best use of our military is to use it as a deterrent and to let our enemies wear themselves out with military adventurism and risky long term deployments. We are now making the same mistake that the Soviet Union made. Do we want to suffer the same fate?

“We are not the world’s policeman, we are not the world’s babysitter and we’re not the world’s social worker,” said RLC Chairman Dave Nalle. “America is a great and charitable country, but we should remember how the Soviet Union was brought down by overreaching ambition, and realize that we can no longer afford to bear the world’s burdens alone. Michael Steele has opened up the debate on Afghanistan. It’s time for sensible Republicans to take the lead on this issue and express their dissatisfaction with this unjustifiably expensive war which no longer serves its intended purpose.”

–30–

The Republican Liberty Caucus is a nationwide grassroots organization which promotes individual liberty and limited government within the Republican Party. You can find more information about the Republican Liberty Caucus at www.rlc.org.