A lot of conservatives, including a lot of the military establishment, current and retired, don't think a lot of what this particular war will accomplish. Retired General Anthony Zinni, hardly a media or academic elite, condemned the war as complicating, rather than improving, the situation in the middle east.

It was conservative supporters of the war, not liberals, that didn't want an honest and open discourse on this war, choosing instead to wrap the effort in patriotism and Americanism. General Zinni himself has expressed concern about how the administration tried to drown out dissenting voices from the right.

"A lot of conservatives, including a lot of the military establishment, current and retired, don't think a lot of what this particular war will accomplish."

That's not what the post was about - it was about the liberal factions in the media and academic world. Most conservatives who opposed the Iraq war are not of the opinion that nothing good can ever come of war - they just have varying degrees of skepticism about whether the war is in our country's best interests. Most of them will be happy if the war succeeds (of course, there are differing views of 'success'). But most liberals in the media and the academy will actually be disappointed if the war is successful, because it wil be a repudiation of their worldview, and because it will benefit George Bush.

To answer Justin's question - the majority will throw the paint on the crumbling edifice. The alternative is too painful, and would require too much serious thought.

Mike,

Yes, some liberals would be disappointed. But there are also a many conservatives who were disappointed when the economy soared after Clinton balanced the budget. Their worldview was that the economy would have to crash and burn if taxes were raised, even if those taxes weren't for new programs but to cut the deficits. The truth is that both liberals and conservatives have become very blind to anything that doesn't fit their narrow ideology.

I hear all this whining about liberal media elites and academic elites. Fine. But the conservative elites of the business world, law enforcement, the military, and intelligence, etc. have often steered us on dangerous or destructive paths. If the conservative elites had had their way during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we probably would have had World War III on a nuclear basis.

Joel,

You're going off on a larger theme that we probably don't have the time to cover all of in Justin's comment box, so I'll just respond to a couple of points.

"Yes, some liberals would be disappointed."

What do you mean by 'some'? I think the vast majority of the media and academic worlds will be disappointed. And a significant fraction of the Democratic Party. This are not insignificant portions of the population. And they are dominating the discourse on the left side of the political spectrum. People like Zell Miller or Joe Leiberman basically get ignored.

"But there are also a many conservatives who were disappointed when the economy soared after Clinton balanced the budget."

So, we switched from 'some' liberals to 'many' conservatives. I submit that what many conservatives were disappointed about was that Clinton took/received credit for balancing the budget, when in fact his policies had very little to do with that event. Yes, this is a problem that goes both ways, in that Presidents of both parties receive undue credit/blame for how the economy performs during their terms. But the more important point is that there is a huge moral difference between normal swings of the economy and whether our country loses in military engagements.

"The truth is that both liberals and conservatives have become very blind to anything that doesn't fit their narrow ideology."

But not to an equal degree, or in regards to issues of equal importance, as your equation of war and economic policy indicates. Read HughHewitt.com.

"I hear all this whining about liberal media elites and academic elites. Fine. But the conservative elites of the business world, law enforcement, the military, and intelligence, etc. have often steered us on dangerous or destructive paths."

This is what I mean when I say you're going off on a broad theme here. Are the elites of the business world, law enforcement, the military, and intelligence (I don't know what the 'etc.' is supposed to refer to) really conservative? Do they all have similar outlooks? In which instances have they (collectively) led us down dangerous or destructive paths? You can see how this might take awhile to flesh out (which I don't have time to do). We are talking about a specific response, by a fairly well-defined group of people, to a specific event. The questions are whether they are really rooting for the U.S. to succeed, and whether they will admit their mistake if the U.S. does succeed. I submit that the answer is 'no' to both questions.

"If the conservative elites had had their way during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we probably would have had World War III on a nuclear basis."

Now this is truly an irrelevant tangent. Even if it was a reasonable parallel (I don't think it is), the answer to it would provide zero input into the question posed by Justin.

Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman were hardly ignored.

I'm acquainted with a lot of liberals and I don't see among them this widespread desire for America to fail. Such a view of liberals is simply an elitist conservative outlook.

My reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis is not a tangent. It is an explanation that there has been and continues to exist a widespread conservative elite that has run many of the non-academic institutions.

As to the media, on the local level, the media tend to be very conservative. The elite of talk radio are very conservative.

"Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman were hardly ignored."

Umm, can you point me to any pieces in the major media where they were lauded, or at least portrayed in a neutral light?

"I'm acquainted with a lot of liberals and I don't see among them this widespread desire for America to fail. Such a view of liberals is simply an elitist conservative outlook."

Well, obviously one cannot place all liberals in the same category. Tony Blair is a liberal by American political standards, but obviously he's not rooting for the U.S. to fail. But the fact that a significant fraction of liberals want us to fail in Iraq because a) they would rather see that than see GWB succeed at anything or b) they think the U.S. is always wrong when it goes to war and think that a humiliating defeat would keep us from going to war in the future. What do you make of statements like Ted Kennedy's, claiming that we are operating Abu Ghraib in an equivalent manner to Saddam? How else can that statement be interpreted, except that the U.S. military and the Bush administration are evil?

"My reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis is not a tangent. It is an explanation that there has been and continues to exist a widespread conservative elite that has run many of the non-academic institutions."

Umm, you do know who was president during the Cuban missle crisis, don't you? And who controlled Congress? And that the CIA and State Departments generally have liberal outlooks? And that the reason the crisis came about was very likely due to the fact that Kruschev decided that Kennedy was weak and would back down.

"As to the media, on the local level, the media tend to be very conservative. The elite of talk radio are very conservative."

So what? This is a recent phenomenon, and largely came about because all of the mainstream media is liberal. You seem to be arguing that there should be no conservative influence at all, not that there is too much of it or that such influence has resulted in pernicious effects.

Mike,

I've been reading Justin's blog for a good while. I agree with Justin on almost nothing. But am I opposed to him having a blog? Am I plotting against his blog? I also listen to Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, etc. and watch FOX News quite a bit. I'd love to see more conservative writers and columnists working for the New York Times and more liberals working for the Daily Oklahoman. I'd like to see more conservatives as professors.

The CIA is not a liberal institution. Nor the FBI. Nor the Pentagon. The State Department, maybe, if one wants to claim that Colin Powell and Henry Kissinger are liberals.

As to the Cuban Missile Crisis, my point was that the conservative generals seemed to be in favor of going nuclear. Kennedy, a relative liberal, sought to defuse the situation.

The media on the local level has been more conservative throughout history.

"The CIA is not a liberal institution. Nor the FBI. Nor the Pentagon. The State Department, maybe, if one wants to claim that Colin Powell and Henry Kissinger are liberals."

The relevant point is not who is at the top of the organization during any particular presidency, but the culture of the organization, which may shift one way or the other when different parties are in power, but is generally set by the career people in the organization. I did not claim that the FBI or Pentagon were liberal. I suppose the CIA is debateable. But generally speaking, people who spend a long time in Washington tend to become more liberal, in the sense that they support more federal spending, more federal regulations, more federal activity.

"As to the Cuban Missile Crisis, my point was that the conservative generals seemed to be in favor of going nuclear. Kennedy, a relative liberal, sought to defuse the situation."

I fail to see how this is relevant to the current situation. And I still think it is silly to claim there wasn't an extended debate leading up to the war. It started in the summer of 2002, included a presidential address at the UN, a congressional resolution, and Colin Powell's trip to the UN in Feb. 2003, plus numerous articles and editorials in the press and online. Not to mention that we'd been debating over what to do with Saddam since 1991. Wolfowitz, et al., had made their views public since the mid-1990's. Where were you?

Where was I in the mid-90's? Thnakfully, I was no longer in the military.