LIMBAUGH COMMENTARY: TOM SAWYER'S COMPASSION TRAP

Republicans are so adept at self-destruction that they are about to convert one of Bill Clinton's worst policy debacles into a political net loss for themselves. Clinton's NATO operation has not only already failed to accomplish its main purpose -- to end the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo -- it has specifically exacerbated the problem by intensifying and accelerating the cleansing.

Of course, Republicans shouldn't choose this time when our soldiers are in harm's way to opportunistically score political points for Clinton's woeful mishandling of the matter. But neither should they rush headlong into shooting themselves gratuitously in the foot over it.

Republicans manage to allow themselves to be painted as evil no matter what side of an issue they are on. When they were largely united against communist aggression and favored intervention in foreign conflicts to prevent the domino effect -- i.e., the fall of one nation to communism leading to the fall of others -- they were viewed as reactionary, paranoid imperialists.

Now, Democrats are leading a U.S. intervention, which is clearly more "imperialistic" under any but the communist definition of that term, in part to prevent Milosevic's aggression from spilling over into Macedonia and other neighboring states (read: the domino effect).

So Republican opponents of the operation are regarded as reasonable advocates of restraint, right? Wrong. They are reactionary, paranoid isolationists. This description wouldn't be so bad if its authors weren't Clinton and his demagogic allies.

The problem is that Clinton has ravaged the Republicans' collective self-image to the point that they are falling all over themselves to do his dirty work for him, as if he were Tom Sawyer. They are so anxious to shed their uncompassionate image that they seem willing to destroy each other in their individual quests for rehabilitation.

Unfortunately, some influential conservative commentators have also fallen under Mr. Sawyer's compassion trap. They, too -- especially those inside the beltway -- must prove that, though they are Republicans, they are of the enlightened species who care about their fellow man, as distinguished from the Neanderthal family.

That's why we're reading and hearing the patronizing advice of certain Republicans to their brethren to purge themselves of their hatred of President Sawyer so they can clearly discern the wisdom of intervening in a sovereign nation.

With all due respect to the enlightened, is Clinton's knee-jerk interventionism really something Republicans ought to be emulating?

Our current fiasco in Serbia is an illustration of what happens when liberals are in charge of the military. There are no definable goals or guiding principles underlying the policy, let alone an exit strategy.

We've heard a great deal of lofty rhetoric from the globalists about the obligations of the United States as the world's only remaining superpower. Their actions belie their words because they are the ones who have presided over the criminal dismantling of the military to the point that it cannot perform to the extent their reckless idealism demands.

Liberals and their favorite conservative commentators praise Sen. John McCain for having the courage to support Clinton and for saying "now that we're in there, we've gotta do whatever it takes to win."

Circumspect Neanderthals, on the other hand, argue that before we send ground forces in we better have a crystal clear idea of what we are trying to accomplish. Do we intend only to rid Kosovo of Milosevic's Serbian forces, or are we going to supervise the return to the province of displaced Kosovar Albanians? Are we going to march into Belgrade and physically remove Milosevic from power? Are we going to continue to occupy Kosovo indefinitely? Will we allow our ground forces to fight the war, or impose artificial and life-threatening restraints upon their ability to engage the enemy?

There are many Republicans opposed to this war who are neither isolationists nor uncompassionate. They believe that we have an obligation to base our decisions on a cohesive, coherent foreign policy rather than the mischief of runaway emotions; and before this nation has the moral right to compel its young soldiers into battle, our national interests must be at stake.

Republicans neither can nor should compete with Democrats in a contest of compassion, so they should quit trying. A refreshing first step in that direction would be a self-imposed ban on such obsequious phrases as "compassionate conservatism."

Besides, what is so compassionate or moral about sending American troops to their potential deaths in a cause that does not affect their lives or the strategic interests of the nation they are sworn to protect?

~David Limbaugh of Cape Girardeau is a columnist for Creators Syndicate.