In the last few days, a debate has erupted on X questioning whether I’ve sullied my reputation as a reactionary by failing to oppose President Trump’s use of the military in the latest conflict with Iran.
Supposedly, I should be opposing all military actions taken by the current administration since I was one of the most prominent opponents of neoconservative interventionism. Moreover, as a defender of the traditional right, I should be viewing foreign intervention as a means of increasing the power of a rogue managerial-therapeutic government at home. Finally, as someone who viscerally loathes our present anti-discrimination regime, I should want to focus all our energies on combating this bureaucratic monstrosity while avoiding the distraction of foreign confrontations.
I also have a record of opposing past American use of the military, from the Iraq War to World War I to the blood bath of the Civil War. Shouldn’t we therefore assume that I would oppose all military involvement, no matter what the situation?
Not so fast! Although I deplore the brutal, bloody excesses of World War II and would have favored, if possible, a negotiated removal of the Nazi government, I believe the U.S. was justified in dislodging Hitler from power. Certainly, it would also have been better if, following Sean McMeekin’s back-mirror view in Stalin’s War, we had treated the Soviet tyrant as an aggressive enemy much earlier than we did. In short, I’m not quite the military isolationist I’m supposed to be, even if I have repeatedly warned against allowing the odious neoconservatives anywhere near the State Department.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member