While soldiers and civilians die, the National Review says “Stay.” In retrospect, it was inevitable: Conservatives have finally articulated a policy position so simple-minded it can be understood by a dog. First these “intellectuals” told us that there were WMDs. Then they said Iraq was linked to 9/11. Then they said we were “spreading democracy” in Iraq. Now they’re supporting insurgents against the legitimate government of Iraq.

They will literally say or do anything to support the will of their leaders. And they dare to talk to the rest of us – and our troops – as if we were recalcitrant poodles.

Stay. Sit. Die.

Their editorial says the surge (the Insurge, actually) is working. Their brain trust, such as it is, gathered for what they pretentiously described as a “symposium” about Iraq – and, guess what? Things are great! What a relief, eh?

They no longer even try to pretend that they’re responding to the many substantive criticisms of our Iraq policy. They just pretend those criticisms don’t exist. Not one of them addresses the nearly unanimous position of retired military men who aren’t still career-ambitious, and who have been criticizing this war almost from the beginning.

Not one of them addresses the fact that Petraeus and the Administration are falsifying death statistics. (If you’re shot from the front it’s sectarian … or is that the other way around?) Not one is capable of describing what “success in Iraq” will look like. Not one appeared to comprehend that “Al Qaeda” in Iraq didn’t exist before the war, or that this war has vastly empowered jihadists by providing them with a bumper crop of new recruits. Not one is honest enough to admit that we would have had to reduce troop levels anyway.

Wait. There’s more. Take this gem:

What Will The ACLU Do? [Cliff May]

I think the ACLU may have a mixed reaction to this. On the one hand, it hardly accords with due process. On the other hand, it does suggest a pro-choice sensibility.

“Now, I swear to God, if we will hear anyone is with al-Qaeda, even if he is still inside his mother’s womb, we will kill him.” – Ali Hatem Ali Suleiman, a leader of the Dulaim confederation, the largest tribal organization in Iraq‘s Anbar Province.

Ha. ha. War funny. Oh – wait. If we wanted to start arming sectarian gangs, we could have done it years ago.

But what about the President? “I sure hope he’s right,” says Pete Hegseth. These rigorous thinkers know that hope is not enough, though – so Hegseth also prays he’s right. And “with Gen. Petraeus’ blessing,” he says, “I have confidence in this assignment.” His blessing? Is Petraeus the Pope now, too?

They also try to make this about MoveOn, of course. But if “criticizing Petraeus is criticizing the troops,” what does that say about Petraeus’ own boss, who says that he’s an “ass-kissing little chickenshit”? Is the head of CENTCOM “criticizing the troops”?

Just in case your sanctimony quotient hasn’t been met yet, Mona Charen muses about the Jewish holiday and observes that “it is essential to ask forgiveness from a person you have wronged before asking for God’s forgiveness.” Yet neither she nor any of the other National Review contributors have asked forgiveness yet for the careerism, partisanship, and intellectual vapidity that leads them to continue supporting a futile and devastating war.

Conservatism is no longer a political philosophy. It’s a tribal affiliation, a political posture, an act of servitude that prizes gang loyalty and blind obedience above simple decency and the rudiments of sound reasoning.

Please, all of you: Go away. Lie down. Roll over. Do anything but “stay.”

RJ Eskow

RJ Eskow

RJ Eskow is a musician turned corporate executive and consultant, with public and private sector experience in over 20 countries. Mostly health care and technology - plus, as the old song would have it, "a bit of what you fancy."