WEEKLY STANDARD NATIONAL GREATNESS?

The Weekly Standard is bold in stating and supporting its ideology. Only it is not the traditional limited government conservatism devised by the movement's founders. The WS forthrightly informs its readers that George W. Bush is a "big spender," subheading a recent piece informing its readers that, "under Bush, the era of small government is over." Moreover, there is not much limited government conservatives can do about it. "Governing majorities can't stand still" the executive editor informs, they must spend more and more money on national problems because "that's what the public expects." Bush and the GOP Congressional leadership will take some symbolic steps to seem as if they are cutting government and they will "probably" get away with it even among limited government conservatives, for whom there is little if any editorial sympathy.

On the other hand, the Standard is not happy with Mr. Bush's foreign policy, especially on Iraq, and it very much wants to do something about it. After helping to convince President Bush to invade Iraq, it is concerned that the occupation will not be long enough to bring permanent peace and democracy to the whole Middle East. In a debate a few years ago, Mr. Kristol had told us we would be in the Arab world (and in the Balkans) for twenty years but, now, the administration did not seem to be following the plan. While supporting the president's "fine speech" calling for a "forward strategy" for democracy in the region, it complained that he would not "increase troop strength or take the time to properly train the Iraqi troops." (Does training take 20 years?)

To say that more U.S. troops are not needed is "absurd," say the editors. It is a "dangerous illusion" that Iraqi troops can substitute for American ones to achieve U.S. goals. Those goals are not to secure peace and turn affairs to the Iraqis but to stay "long enough that a good regime" comes to power and, presumably, remains forever good and democratic. That could take twenty years or even forever. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is criticized for only wanting to "bring the level of U.S. forces down." President Bush himself has already announced a reduction and it looks as if he has an exit strategy rather than a victory strategy. The Weekly Standard does not like that one bit. We will have to wait and see whether the editors are so determined that they will create their own special, special forces unit to make up for the "parsimony" of the administration's commitment of American lives and fortunes to their goal of eternal peace and democracy in the Middle East.