From its rhetoric to its heroes, this camorra has always seemed to me to be nothing more than the more gooberist elements of the Republican Right whose desire not to pay taxes for anything while continuing to fund everything they enjoy (killing Muslims, subsidies for "small farmers", that sort of thing) exceeds even the fairly fantastic complacency of the less-unhinged elements of the GOP.
But this is really idiotic - GOP candidate and Tea Party flavor-of-the-week Christine O'Donnell;
"Well if you remember when we were fighting the Soviets over there in Afghanistan in the '80s and '90s, we did not finish the job, so now we have a responsibility to finish the job and if you are gonna make these politically correct statements that it's costing us too much money, you are threatening the security of our homeland."Before we can have any sort of sensible discussion about our Little Wars in central Asia and the Middle East we need to have, at the very least, a grown-up understanding about What They Are and What They Are Not. And one thing - the most central thing - they ARE NOT is about the "security of our homeland".
The Taliban, including all its permutations, is not and never will be an existential threat to the continental U.S., Hawaii, Guam, the U.S.V.I. or anything else underneath our starry flag. Ain't now, never was, won't be, until the moment the Taliban High Seas Fleet hoves into view off the Virgina Capes or the Taliban Air Force pounds San Francisco flat (though given their philosophical differences O'Donnell would probably give the Talibs the City by the Bay...).
I'm not saying that there is NO argument for pursuing a conventional war on the Asian mainland or in the Middle East. But I am saying that if you try to halt the argument by saying that making a cost-benefit analysis of fighting cabinet wars is the equivalent of surrender then you're not arguing seriously, and, in fact, your credibility as a particpant in the entire discussion is in serious jeopardy.
I think that the Bush years have badly damaged the GOP and that is a problem, because the United States does need a party to speak for the political, economic, and social conservatives. But these Tea Partiers are starting to move - have moved - beyond the sort of crony-capitalist, national-security-state-Washington-Rules sort of intellectual poverty that dominated the GOP after two terms of Dubyism into real tinfoil hat territory. And if they come to dominate the party we as a nation are in real trouble; first because they will shift the national conversation WAY over towards Teh Crazy, and second, because their insistence in the political purity of their positions makes them ever less unlikely to accept compromise than when Karl Rove used the term to mean "bend the Democrats over and show them who runs things in D.C.".
I wish I could retire this term but, shit...WASF