Slavens Says

Newt Gingrich, the current Republican frontrunner in the presidential race, is a neoconservative interventionist.

“Neoconservative” is a label that is often misused by liberals to refer to conservatives whom they consider to be right-wing or extreme, but more accurately describes those who, unlike our noninterventionist Founding Fathers, believe American-style democracy should be spread across the world (especially in Middle Eastern states with sizable oil reserves). Recent Republican and Democratic presidents have disagreed over the best way to intervene in foreign countries — Democrats prefer aid and sanctions, while Republicans prefer military interventions — but have been equally enthusiastic about involving themselves in other nations’ affairs.

George W. Bush, of course, used the September 11th attacks as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq (without a congressional declaration of war, as required by the Constitution), and Barack Obama perpetuated his predecessor’s wars while starting one of his own in Libya (also without a declaration of war). Gingrich was largely supportive of those interventions, though he occasionally criticized the way various aspects were handled, and seems to want to add a new name to the growing list of U.S.- occupied countries: Iran.

“Unless they unilaterally disarm their entire system, we are going to replace their regime,” Gingrich said during a recent debate. “We’re ideally going to do it non-militarily, but we are not going to tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon.”

The implication is clear: Gingrich is willing to wage a war against Iran based on unproven claims that its government is building a nuclear weapon. Iran is not like Iraq, or Afghanistan; such a war could become World War III. Anyone who would scoff at that possibility is either uninformed or reckless, and, in either case, a dangerous choice for president.

Based on his strong support for past, present, and future military interventions, one might assume that Gingrich is a veteran; someone who has witnessed the horrors of war firsthand and, as commander-in-chief, could be trusted to spend the lifeblood of young Americans only when absolutely necessary. That’s not the case. In fact, when he had a chance to serve in the Vietnam War, he received draft deferments.

Ron Paul, an Air Force veteran who takes third in most national polls and is expected to take second, if not first, in the upcoming Iowa caucuses, brought up the issue during an interview with Fox’s Megyn Kelly on Thursday.

“In the 1960s, when I was drafted — you know, in the military — he got several deferments,” Paul said of Gingrich. “He chose not to go. Now he’ll send our kids to war, but at that time he said that one person wouldn’t make a difference, he didn’t know how he could make a difference.”

Ouch.

To be clear, the issue is not that Gingrich sought and received deferments. Many others did the same, for valid reasons. But now, decades after skipping military service, he supports an aggressive foreign policy. Clearly, it’s easier to send others into harm’s way than it is to go yourself.