Conservative Call to Arms

Stanley Kurtz wrote a fairly compelling--least in my opinion--post at the Corner about luxury. Though it's not what you'd think. Time is often a luxury and Kurtz notes it is one we don't have at this point on the issue of Iran. Likewise, we can't afford the luxury of petulance:

We don’t have the luxury of sitting on our hands in the next election. We don’t have the luxury of punishing slack Republican legislators on the theory that this will somehow produce a tougher conservative line in 2008. We don’t have the luxury of all this because a nuclear Iran is bearing down on the United States, while our country stands paralyzed by its own divisions. You can blame Iraq if you like. I blame the Democrats’ Vietnam syndrome. But no matter who you blame, the sad fact of the matter is, the president’s hands are tied. The president cannot confront Iran with a credible threat of force, much less actually strike it, without greater domestic support.

A slight Republican win in the next election, or even a draw, would greatly strengthen the president’s hands in dealing with Iran. Not only would a successful election change the dynamics of our international confrontation, a Republican-controlled congress would allow for an even stronger line down the road, after America finally faces up to the reality of the threat. On the other hand, a Democratic victory now would effectively take the option of force against Iran off the table. Yet a credible threat of force is actually our only hope for settling this matter short of war.

Politics is the answer. Politics constrains us, and politics alone will free us. The Republicans must not lose this election. Don’t mope and tell me you’re sitting on your hands at home instead of voting. There is no excuse. The only good news right now is that we have in our hands the power to protect ourselves. The voting booth is the answer. No, I am not saying Democrats are all unpatriotic pacifists (although, unfortunately, a number of them are). There are genuine policy differences here. The Democrats are far more likely to favor unverifiable grand bargains, and the need for U.N. approval. They are far less likely to approve of pre-emptive military action by a U.S. led "coalition of the willing." So a Democratic victory will tell Iran that nothing of consequence stands between it and the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Were it 2000, this sort of teenage angst would be--for the most part--tolerable. If you believe that Republicans, flawed as they may be, represent a better chance to win the conflict we currently find ourselves in then you can not afford to sit. You just can't.