War Is Too Serious to Involve Liberals

War is a very grave affair. Instead of just money, it involves risking the lives of men and women with our policy decisions. On the battlefield, people will be killed without trial. Lives will be ruined. Cities will be decimated. It is an intensely serious matter -- the most serious matter a country can engage in -- which begs an obvious question. Why do we involve liberals in it at all?

There's an old expression I just made up: There's no liberal in a bear attack. In matters of life and death, like a bear ripping apart your house, there is no time to morally preen and pat yourself on the back for how smart you sound. Back in the day, life was pretty brutal for everyone, so there just weren't any liberals. Unserious people starved to death or were mauled by giant sloths. With death lurking around every corner, people had no time for useless worries like whether warming the ozone would kill unicorns or whatever.

Things are a lot easier now -- so easy that even useless people can survive -- and thus we now have to suffer liberals. But we have one brutal leftover from the olden days. War. And it's not something a liberal is ever going to learn to deal with.

As the country plans to increase efforts in Afghanistan, the pointlessness of involving liberals in such a crucial issue really becomes apparent. During the presidential campaign, they were whining that Iraq was distracting from the real war in Afghanistan. And now with Afghanistan the focus, are they gung ho? Do they want to eradicate the awful Taliban, which oppresses its people and gives aid and comfort to al-Qaeda, who murdered thousands of Americans?

Of course not.

Liberals have only one piece of wisdom to add to any discussion about war: "This war is just like Vietnam!" That's it. Nothing else. Every war is Vietnam, and Vietnam is very bad. That's all they know. I'm not even sure how they protested wars before Vietnam ("This war is just like 1812!"). And to distract from the fact that they have one argument, they also have the non sequitur of calling people chickenhawks.

And if someone was in the military, they'll say he is still a chickenhawk because he's not in it now. And if someone is in the military now, then if he believes so much in the war, why isn't he over fighting it just this instant? And even if someone were to meet a liberal's impossible standards for having the right to argue for a war, it would be completely pointless to engage them on the subject, because all one could ever get out of them is, "This war is just like Vietnam!" They're annoying, shrill, and repetitive; it's like arguing with an alarm clock.