I remember when we got into Afghanistan and Iraq. The Republicans were stoked about the wars and defended them all through the Bush years.When liberals cried out against the war, conservatives smeared them with the “cut and run” label and accused them of being weak on terror. Argument after argument was presented as to why the wars were just and why we had to remain.
Now that they have become Obama’s wars, the Republicans seem to have shed their hawk feathers for the gentle raiment of the dove. To be fair, the Republican’s love for the wars had begun to fade towards the end of the Bush era, but many pundits still defended them (if only from reflex).
On the face of it, the switch can be seen as politics as usual: the wars are Obama’s now and the Republicans must oppose him on all things, even the wars they started and defended for years. As such, the principle they are operating on is the principle of opposing Obama, rather than the principle of what is best for America. After all, they were for the wars when they belonged to George.
Of course, the situation has changed and perhaps the Republican shift is based on actual changes in these wars, rather than the change in who sits in the oval office. If so, perhaps we should head the Republican call and give peace a chance. If a Republican gets elected in 2012 and then owns the wars, it will be interesting to see if the Republican dove remains a dove or tears away the false plumage to reveal the classic hawk.