This is not per se to offer discourse on anything too deep, but there are some observations here regarding the Conservative ideology from a traditional standpoint, and how in many instances it has worked to undermine efforts on a "global war on terror". There is also an argument here towards exactly why support for President Bush has gone by the wayside in the past couple of years.

What the War on Terror is: The War on Terror, if one really looks at it, is not based in military actions in the consideration of the root of its cause. Elements such as enforcement, and military actions are a major factor, but the largest underpinning of the effort lies in a propaganda war. In terms of the Conservative movement, they have been effective at prodding people here at home...yet, to a large degree, it is these very same tactics that have worked to undermine the effort on a whole over the long run. Conservative propaganda works by uniting people against a common enemy...but, this enemy in terms of the propaganda is not the terorists....but instead, the main adversary of conservative propaganda is "the liberals", or in other words, other Americans. A contributing factor to creating a divided populace after 9/11, the rift only got wider once Iraq was invaded.

The United Nations: This is a contradiction in terms of promoting the argument for a global war on terror. On one hand, there is an argument for pulling out of the United Nations, and a lot of energy is spent backbiting other nations that contribute into this body. On the other, the United States government is attempting to define international law unto ourselves with efforts that can be seen as evidenced at Guantanamo Bay. In light of how the War on Terror is a propaganda effort, this decision to detain the combatants indefinitely with no hearings has done more to undermine out efforts, and is used as a propaganda tool by enemies of the United States. The thrust of the argument here is not the validity of the United Nations as a whole, but rather pushing the argument on one hand that the world should engage this effort while on the other rejecting the world's opinions and rejecting the body which pushes to define international law.

Free trade: Free trade in its context is a very liberal ideology. It's not rooted in conservative ideologies at all. "Laissez faire" capitalism is popular in terms of bilateral trade agreements, as is allowing busineses a free reign in which to determine their own fortunes with no government intervention or regulation. But, if one is to look at the WTO, or the NAFTA free trade agreement, most of these bodies are rejected by the Conservative movement. Many other issues that play against these bodies (such as illegal immigration) are viewed with serious intention towards undermining aspects of the Bush Doctrine on a whole which has free trade as one of its fulcrums. Offshoring is a very difficult subject to address, and it is inconclusive because on one hand, conservatives believe in allowing businesses a free hand, but on the other, many would argue that America loses strength as a nation by offshoring jobs, or advocating cheap goods into this country as a result. In terms of the War on Terror, this does play an element due to the fact that because of said trade agreements, our borders have been left open, and less than 5% of all shipping containers entering the United States are actually inspected. IN terms of how this recently played out in the media, a conservative split was evidenced over the Dubai Ports Deal when a contract was negociated and awarded to the UAE for a ports security contract.

Nation building: Conservative ideology has traditionally rejected efforts towards nation building. However, many conservatives are now feeling the pressure, or argument of ideology when it comes to these efforts which are now being actively pursued. It is one thing to support a war (which most conservatives are wont to do), but it's another to support an effort towards reconstructing a nation and in turn engaging in an effort towards "nation building". In order to be successful at this, one has to be able to engage the world as a whole, and work with it, and this again is in opposition to the conservative ideology of working with the world towards efforts, or finding oneself entangled in international agreements and treaties. I don't think it's a mistake that the United States after assuming unilateral military actions found support for Iraq weakening in the coming years. Iraq and Afghanistan, for all intensive purposes are efforts towards nation building.

Spending vs. tax cuts: Any time one is invested this heavily into war there is going to be a massive amount of spending required to support such efforts. But, on the same token, there is a push to pander to the conservative base by cutting taxes. This has led to huge deficits both at home and overseas. In terms of Americans as a whole, we are not so foolish as to push the argument of the validity of this: No one likes to pay taxes, but unless you can reign in spending as well (which is very difficult when wartime funding is being pushed through), the government looks ineffective in terms of having an effective legislative body. The argument against the opposition is the "tax and spend liberal" ideology, but on the same token it seems a hollow argument when one is advocating major funding for wars on one hand and on the other is offering no discourse on how to pay for it.

Conclusion: The conservative ideology has become muddled in liberal idealism while refusing to accept liberal tactics in order to see these ideals through. If there is an argument to reject the United Nations, then one should reject all of the ideals that are espoused by the United Nations....such as 'nation building' efforts, free trade agreements, or treaties on a whole. Furthermore, to a larger degree if there is a rejection towards world bodies, and an argument to pull out of the United Nations, then one should review the policy as a whole, and embrace isolationism. On all fronts, Americans are frustrated because the conservative ideology in a post-911 era has been one of a social agenda, but even this flies in the face of traditional conservative values which have been engendered towards the protection of the rights of the states. The bottom line towards the conservative movement in the post 911 era is that by attempting to indoctrinate elements of an ideology while rejecting it at the same time does not allow for a full and successful engagement of what is sought on a whole, and in this instance that does imply the War on Terror. Furthermore, one cannot please everyone by accepting "partial doctrines" with the expectation that these will be effective in practice.