If only conservatives joined with us liberals when we were opposing the war with ACTUAL US SOLIDERS FIGHTING over in Iraq.....unfortunately, conservatives were all gung ho for that war.....even called those of us who opposed it, traitors and terrorists....
But no matter how many ways you try to slice it ......wanting Ukraine to be invaded by Russia isn't the same as opposing Iraq....yall keep being on the wrong side of history....
You are absolutely right about the response of most conservatives to Iraq.
There were exceptions, such as the libertarians at AntiWar.com, Rand Paul, and the Buchananites of the publication
American Conservative.
But most of us, even if we had our original doubts, supported the war, with or without labelling our political opponents "traitors". (Some of us remembered one of our authority figures, old Samuel Johnson, and his remark that "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels".)
By the way, I was originally skeptical about invading Iraq, and in arguments I quoted Robespierre, of all people, to the effect that "People do not love missionaries with bayonets".
But once the war was on, of course I wanted our side to win -- and not just because, or even primarily because, I'm an American, but because the other side were not just Iraqi patriots/nationalists, but because they were, in Christopher Hitchens' words, Islamo-fascists.
AND ... almost everyone that I interacted with on the web, liberal or conservative, supported the invasion of Afghanistan. The argument was over Iraq, where our actions were unforced, voluntary. But in hindsight, trying to bring civilization to Afghanistan was even more of a fool's errand than trying to bring it to Iraq.
Americans have a hard time understanding pre-modern mentality, tribalism. They all look alike to us, they're all Muslims ... why can't they just settle down and have periodic elections and tolerate their differences and let their children, including their girls, go to school and get educated and come on into the modern world, with flush toilets and electricity and vacations abroad and modern medicine and a car in every garage? Like the Chinese and the Indians are doing?
Okay, my side learned a hard lesson there, sort of. We didn't learn it from the Left -- there
was a strain of intelligent, not-anti-American opposition to the war on the Left -- as exemplified by Barak Obama (but not Hilary Clinton, who supported the invasion of Iraq). But it didn't stand out during the debates on the war.
So from our point of view, most of the Left's opposition to the wars then was a mix of simple-minded mush-head pacifism -- which would have condemned our participation in WWII, or even the North's war against the slave-owners in the Civl War -- or blame-America-first-ism. Part of the Left saw militant Islamism as a kind of mutated Third World Anti-imperialism ... Fidel Castro/Ho Chi Minh with a Koran. (Of course, the first thing victorious Islamists do to genuine Communists is to hang them. They're godless atheists, after all.)
From the point of view of the rational Right, the problem is this: a lot of our base is now reflexively anti-involvement-in-foreign-wars. But reflexive anti-war-ism, like its earlier reflexive patriotism, is not a good base from which to try to understand the world and react to it.
Even worse is the "it's costing us money which we could spend here". A favorite slogan of the Right, and a good one, is "Freedom is not free!" Sometimes we
should forego a second car in order to buy atom bombs and tanks and pay the salaries of paratroopers. It's a question of using these expensive resources wisely.
So .... we must say sorry to all the liberal Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans, and liberal veterans in general. We -- including Hilary Clinton and the great majority of the Democratic Party leadership -- were wrong to send you into danger-close twenty years ago. "You", of course, includes all veterans, most of whom were and are probably closer to us politically than to the Left, and many of whom were our relatives.
(As some Leftists pointed out at the time, the most prominent neo-Cons, the real theoretical architects of our interventions then -- and back in the saddle in Washington now -- tended to send their children to Harvard, not to Iraq or Afghanistan. But this was/is not true in general of your rank-and-file conservative voter.)
And anyone on the Right who simple-mindedly calls you, or for that matter any honest opponent of American foreign policy, at any time, a "traitor", is simply ignorant of what that word means, and is using it because he has no good arguments at his disposal.
(On the other hand ... why do some of your leaders honor people like the Soviet spy Ethel Rosenberg? What were they thinking? Do you not see how the "traitor" label isn't completely crazy when people on your side do things like that?)
Finally, I don't know of any conservative who "wants Ukraine to be invaded by Russia", although there may be -- probably are -- a few misguided souls who think something close to this. (These would be people who have fixated on the 'culture war', and have noted that the Ukrainian ruling elite-- at the moment -- is pretending to be the equivalent of Western LBGT+ liberals, although they are in fact very far from this. Whereas Mr Putin has committed the unpardonable crime of preventing pro-homosexual propaganda from being promulgated in his schools. [ See here for one take on why Western Lefties don't like Mr Putin:
Russia as the "Great Satan" in the Liberal Imagination ]
But what Russia did last year in Ukraine, and is doing now, is not the whole story, by a long shot. There are thoughtful people, on both the Left and the Right, who understand that if you know the full story -- starting thirty years ago, when the Russian leadership voluntarily, peacefully, withdrew from Eastern Europe, bought with the blood of millions of Russians responding to Germany's invasion of their country (the second time in the century), and then dismantled Communism, again, voluntarily, peacefully -- if you know this story, it puts the war in Ukraine in a different light.