Russell Kirk on Iraq?

Because I am such a conservative geek, I belong to a Russell Kirk listserve. There has been an interesting discussion about what position Dr. Kirk might take in the current Iraq debate. One of the partcipants was particularly insightful and I wanted to share it with everyone. So, with permission of the author, here it is:

It’s always interesting to ask “What would so-and-so think if he were alive
today.” In this particular case, we can be fairly confident as to what Dr.
Kirk would probably think of Eminem, this year’s fall TV schedule, and the
newly juiced revival of interest in Tolkien. In matters of foreign policy,
things become far less clear.

In an essay published in The Politics of Prudence, Kirk wrote “that a
soundly conservative foreign policy, in the age which is dawning, should be
neither “interventionist” nor “isolationist”: it should be prudent. Its
object should not be to secure the triumph everywhere of America’s name and
manners, under the slogan of “democratic capitalism,” but instead the
preservation of the true national interest, and acceptance of the diversity
of economic and political institutions throughout the world.” A prudent
foreign policy–one neither timid nor marked by braggadocio–was Kirk’s
benchmark.

Among the conservatives of today, Kirk would be something of an odd-man-out;
a believer in prudence as the prime virtue, he was neither a militarist nor
a peacenik. A man very difficult to pidgeonhole. He cautioned prudence above
all in committing the lives of our young people to combat. Almost alone
among conservatives, he was staunchly against the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
In the same essay quoted above, he wrote:

“Why engage in wars halfway around the world, at incalculable expense in men
and money? As Burke, two centuries gone, said of the Pitt government’s
strategy against revolutionary France (with respect to the Netherlands), “A
war for the Scheldt? A war for a chamberpot!” And later, “The blood of man
should be said but to redeem the blood of man. The rest is vanity: the rest
is crime.”

“A war for Kuwait? A war for an oil-can! The rest is vanity; the rest is
crime.”

Conservatives today are nearly as one in hailing that war as a huge triumph
and a litmus-test of one’s patriotism. At the time of the Gulf War, the
voices of those who cautioned against military action were quietly ignored.
Sadly (but all too predictably) Kirk’s words have proven true over time. The
gratitude of the Kuwaitis for American (and Allied) assistance in the Gulf
War of 1991 has proven breathtakingly non-existent. In fact, just the
opposite. Just a week or two ago, a senior Kuwaiti official noted with an
ill-hidden smile that he was delighted by the destruction wrought on 9/11.
One of the most popular names for newborn boys in Kuwait today is
“Osama”–and the parents of these boys are emphatic that they are naming
their sons after bin Laden specifically. As our own moms used to say, that’s
gratitude for you!

None of us can speak for the late Dr. Kirk; but we can surmise that he would
urge us to weigh carefully how we ought to act before taking military
action, factoring the effect an American presence–however temporary–might
have on the other countries in the Middle East. In blunt terms–and I’m not
sure these are terms Kirk would use–the question would boil down to this:
Is taking out Saddam Hussein worth the spilling of one drop of an American
soldier’s blood? He would be unconvinced, I think, that the fact that Saddam
is a very bad man is a good enough reason to engage in warfare “halfway
around the world, at incalculable expense in men and money.” On the other
hand, if he were convinced that Saddam is not only stockpiling weapons of
mass destruction, including the biological and chemical type, but is also
planning to put this material into the hands of terrorists who plan on
bringing it to the U.S. in small containers (suitcases, say) and detonating
it, he might think otherwise. In such a case, the tragic spilling of
American soldiers’ blood would spare the shedding of much more blood on our
home soil, which would result if we did not act. (We all remember the
uncertainty, fear, and sense of being spiritually shaken on 9/11/01. Imagine
how that sense of upset would be magnified if, in another coordinated
attack, briefcase nukes–supplied by Iraq–were to be detonated in a single
morning in Boston, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, Dallas, St.
Louis, Miami, and Detroit. At such a time, amid radioactive winds, we could
perhaps wonder in bitterness whether it would have been prudent to eliminate
Saddam’s war-machine when we had the chance.)

During his life, Kirk saw many barbarities and barbarians throughout the
world, notably the Nazis and Communists. These ideologues’ foul goals at
least had a place in it for humanity–if only to enslave it. But the
Wahhabis, who supply the foot-soldiers of al-Quaida, have no room in life
for anyone but themselves. These are individuals whose faith amounts to
murderous nihilism, and they did not cross Kirk’s radar screen. To allow
such people, by their existence and actions, to be the natural lords of
life, would have been antithetical to Kirk’s beliefs.

Not to choose is to choose. Whichever choice is made in regard to Iraq, I
suspect that Kirk would urge our government to act prudently and decisively.
Either stay out altogether or go in prepared to used overwhelming
conventional force to win.

I cannot speak for Dr. Kirk. So the best I can say is, it’s an interesting question and
I don’t know the answer. As I hope I’ve outlined above in somewhat rambling
fashion, there are important things to consider.
– Jim Person