I’d like to believe that Jack Hunter is right<\/a>, but the more I think about it the more I think that the conservative base in this country, barring some cataclysmic event, will never be anti-war in any meaningful sense. \u00a0The sort of limited government and distrust of power advocated by folks over at The American Conservative like Daniel Larison<\/a> will never appeal to the red-meat, America-first crowd unless it’s framed as opposition to the liberal agenda. \u00a0So when you have people like Rep. Jason Chaffetz calling for a withdrawal from Afghanistan or claiming the mantle of the anti-war right<\/a>, it’s really little more than an opportunistic gambit<\/a>. \u00a0It can work because the strategy of opposition can work quite easily in this political climate. \u00a0It’s the same tactic neoconservatives use to get the base fired up in the first place.<\/p>\n The thing that I find so depressing is that the actual stance of the right toward interventionist war won’t change at all. \u00a0While Chaffetz and those sharing his political views may have some luck in the future convincing the American right that it is opposed to Obama’s wars, once conservatives are back in power and faced with their own foreign\u00a0entanglements, the right will have forgotten entirely any opposition it once held toward interventionism. \u00a0Such opposition is grounded entirely in political maneuvering rather than any moral or philosophical framework.<\/p>\n