Conservative newspaper makes a strong case against Trump's war

08 March

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) with U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., March 6, 2026. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

During his first presidency, Donald Trump was a relentless critic of neoconservatives —arguing that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a total disaster. And his America First views, greatly influenced by paleoconservative Patrick Buchanan, were often described as "isolationist."

But Trump, since returning to the White House, has taken a much more interventionist turn — from the capture of former President Nicolás Maduro to pushing for the U.S. to buy Greenland (an idea that European leaders vehemently oppose) to calling for Canada to become "the 51st state." And Trump escalated his interventionism by going to war with Iran.

In an op-ed published by the conservative Washington Examiner on March 8, journalist Timothy P. Carney lays out some reasons why Republicans should proceed with caution when it comes to war.

"If we take conservatism to be a real habit of mind, grounded in insights and a sound anthropology," Carney writes, "then the full weight of conservatism comes down against regime changes and wars of choice…. Overthrowing the current order, even when that order is rife with problems, typically makes things worse. More broadly: Dramatic changes to complex systems always create unintended and unforeseen consequences, and those consequences are often very bad."

Carney continues, "This isn't merely a foreign policy view. This is something the conservative believes so deeply he may not say it out loud. It's why he's skeptical of grand new plans and revolutions, whether cultural, economic, or otherwise. It's not that we live in the best of all possible worlds, it's that we live in a world more complex than we can imagine. Our power of reason is awesome, but humans trying to rearrange civilization are like amateurs tinkering with a home's electrical system — there's a high risk of disaster."

Carney goes on to describe the "lessons" of the United States' "21st Century regime-change wars."

"In Afghanistan," Carney explains, "we very quickly dethroned the Taliban, and then sunk into a 20-year occupation that ended in a humiliating and deadly retreat in 2021….

We spent more than $9 billion to try and end narcotics trade and production in Afghanistan. This was a total failure. By 2018, Afghanistan was supplying more than 90 percent of the world's opium…. The Iraq War, likewise, was quickly declared a success."

Carney continues, "Our military demolished Iraq's, deposed Saddam Hussein, and soon arrested him. For a moment, we were, as the war's champions predicted, greeted as liberators. Mission Accomplished! But then things spiraled way down. The primary premise for the war, that Saddam was about to use 'weapons of mass destruction,' proved false. The government we stood up collapsed. Our efforts to import Madison democracy failed, and in the vacuum, terrorism blossomed and then spread throughout the region. Many experts argue that the war created ISIS, which then brought hell on the region for many years. Domestically, the war became incredibly unpopular, and led to the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 and Barack Obama's election in 2008. Iraq today is one of the worst places on the planet to live."

From Your Site Articles