In the new issue of the National Review Richard Lowry addresses "The ‘To Hell with Them’ Hawks" who he describes as "conservatives who are comfortable using force abroad, but have little patience for a deep entanglement with the Muslim world, which they consider unredeemable, or at least not worth the strenuous effort of trying to redeem" and wh "want to detach Bush’s Jacksonianism from his Wilsonianism." According to Lowry, this "tendency is problematic and, in its own way, as naïve and unrealistic as Bush at his dreamiest." In another conservative magazine, I've discussed the rising anger among conservatives over the Global Democracy project here and suggested why the plans to "democratize" the Middle East are unrealistic and are not advancing U.S. interests here. I think that the recent I-cannot-believe-this reaction in the U.S. and the West to the news
about the Afghan man who had been facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity certainly reflects the attitude that Lowry is criticizing. As I pointed out in my article, most of the "Jacksonian conservatives" or Lowry's "‘To Hell with Them’ Hawks" supported Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan in order to capture and kill the SOB's behind 9/11 and not to spread democracy in that country. Now Osama and Company remain free and we're protecting with blood and treasure a country where converting to Christianity a.k.a freedom of religion results in a death sentence (and let's not even get into a discussion of Iraq here). What is the most amazing part of this story is that there hasn't been even one tiny little demonstration or protest in Afghanistan (or elsewhere in the Moslem world) against this death sentence (and there will be many demonstration after the guy is freed).