If Conservatives Aren’t Ashamed, They Should Be

Friday's column took out after liberals who have, thanks to President Bush, discovered the virtues of limited government. But when it comes to flip-flopping, conservatives can make even John Kerry look like a paragon of consistency. For evidence, one need utter only a single word: Bosnia.

Twelve years ago, liberals like Howard Dean -- now chairman of the DNC, then governor of Vermont -- were urging Bill Clinton to intervene unilaterally in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing. Clinton eventually gained support from NATO, but not from the UN, for military intervention. He won approval from Congress as well, contingent on a one-year time limit that the administration broke soon after Clinton's 1996 re-election. Under the November 1995 Dayton Accords, American forces sent to implement the peace agreement were slated to return home by Christmas 1996. Then their mission became one of "stabilization," and the withdrawal date was extended 18 months, and then American servicemen wound up stuck in the Balkans for years.

The right went ballistic.

"The thing I worry about is how we . . . get out. What is the strategy here for disengaging? What is going to happen a year from now that will allow our withdrawal without reigniting the civil war? What is going to take our place once we pull out? I do not yet have confidence that we have solved that problem."

Those words, spoken in May of 1996, came out of the mouth of Dick Cheney.

IN THE WEEKLY Standard -- the reigning champion in the Olympic sport of Iraq-war cheerleading -- Robert Kagan had this to say in 1997: "The Bosnia mission has been losing altitude for months. War criminals still run free. Refugees are barred from returning to their homes. Efforts to reinvigorate the Bosnian economy and rebuild infrastructure destroyed in the war have faltered miserably . . . .Despite the relatively successful elections last September, Bosnia remains riven by ethnic hatreds which seem to be hardening rather than eroding . . . .To be sure, the troops separated the warring factions and forced the cantonment of many heavy weapons on all sides, all in a matter of weeks and with remarkably little resistance. But then they quickly put themselves in a canton, too. They dug in deep, built walls around their bases, steered clear of the natives, assiduously kept their noses out of other people's business. They steeled themselves to wait out the rest of their stay until they could finally go home, having accomplished little that can't be undone when they leave."

Republicans in Congress disputed Clinton's authority to use military power. They railed against "mission creep." They howled about timetables for withdrawal. They stormed about the extension of the American presence in Bosnia. John McCain said the Clinton administration had a credibility gap "as wide as the Grand Canyon."

Back then, Republicans considered it perfectly acceptable to contradict the commander-in-chief. "My sense is that there is very strong support for our troops but many questions about the president's policies, and so we have to sort out those two very different positions." Thus spake House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Democrats did not accuse him of traitorously abandoning soldiers in the field.

Conservatives also repeatedly expressed outrage at the cost of the Bosnian enterprise, which approached (brace yourself) $2 billion a year. By way of contrast, the Iraq war now costs about $6 billion -- per month.

IT WAS MUCH the same with Kosovo. In April of 1999 the House passed a bill denying the use of funds for ground forces in Kosovo without congressional authorization. Today, talk of defunding the troops is deemed tantamount to treason. Perhaps Republicans who voted for it back then felt the same way Sean Hannity of Fox News did when he thundered, "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" When conservative Republicans opposed military action proposed by the administration, GOP whip Tom DeLay explained, "It's very simple. The president is not supported by the House, and the military is supported by the House." Oh.

Perhaps Republicans opposed to involvement in Kosovo were anticipating critiques such as this one in National Review: "Our political goals in the Balkans remain confused and contradictory . . . .If the purpose of our intervention was to avert a humanitarian crisis in Kosovo, in fact we exacerbated it . . . .If the purpose of the war was to bring political stability to the Balkans, the results are even more unsettling . . . .Finally, if the purpose of the war was to affirm the concept of ethnic harmony, that is now also in ruins . . . . The mission we have undertaken in the Balkans can best be described as liberal imperialism -- the use of our enormous power to civilize some region of the world."

Or maybe Republicans were simply channeling George W. Bush, who took the view that "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal, and an exit strategy."

And these inconsistencies concern only war powers -- not activities such as warrantless wiretapping and the indefinite detention of American citizens. If the Clinton administration had undertaken such practices, anti-government conservatives would have spontaneously ignited in righteous fury -- and rightfully so.

Funny, how a little letter like D or R can so radically change some people's perspective.

My thoughts do not aim for your assent -- just place them alongside your own reflections for a while.

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion/oped.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-09-25-0001.html