Kevin Drum has an interesting post yesterday, responding to a piece by Matt Yglesias on how Obama is being all wishy-washy in refuting Hillary’s militarism. Unfortunately, Drum takes the usual liberal, hand-wringing, “O my gosh Republicans are going to be big meanies who say librulz want Osama bin Laden to strangle children in their beds!” And suggests a few “strategies” so that liberals might avoid such an embarassing fate.

If liberalism - embodied in this case, perhaps, in Obama - cannot stand up and make a convincing and compelling case against this idea that we can send troops to half the countries in the Mideast, that we can kick everyone’s *ss - what good is it?

The conservative case against this war has always been one more rooted in cold, hard reality. We’re going to advance liberty across the globe. Oh really? And what might that cost, hmm? And what maladies might we loose from Pandora’s box in attempting to do so? This idea that we’re going to tech the Mideast how to embrace liberty and democracy - isn’t that social engineering? How’s that worked here at home? But we’re going to accomplish it on a global scale? Isn’t this extraordinarily risky, speculative even? Meanwhile (and Drum does make this argument), China is sitting back, waiting to eat our lunch, waiting for us to overextend ourselves; and we play right along, hastening our own downfall.

Once again, conservatism was once about conserving things; keeping the powder dry. But this is us, walking into the casino, betting half the roll on 21 because we’ve convinced ourselves we have no other choice.

If Obama cannot convince (or doesn’t himself believe) that this country needs to be smart as well as strong, then he’s doomed, then the Democratic Party is doomed. And maybe the country, too.