Welcome. I am new myself. I am hoping that things pick up soon. It is a bit slow here for my taste.
I don't believe that there is really a split within conservativism. Conservatives believe what they have always believed. The rush of liberals seeking to distance themselves from the term liberal has increased the moderate ranks and those less moderate among them have been, by default, called conservatives.
With regard to the war. I would argue that the war in Iraq is a defensive war. We entered that war when Iraq attacked Kuwait, an ally which we were obligated to defend. That war never ended. A saddam agreed to the terms of a cease fire. Over the next 14 years, he blatantly disregarded the terms of that cease fire and offered grudging cooperation with inspectors only under threat of force. He undermined the terms of the food for oil program by the willing corruption of our european "allies".
The iraqi regime showed a willingness to not only attack its own people with both conventional arms and WMD, but its neighbors as well. And those who would suggest that Iraq was not a direct threat to us should take a closer look at what history should have taught them. Prior to 9/11, very few indeed would have thought that Afghanistan, a poor backwater with no air force, no navy, and an army that amounted to little more than ragged militias, could have been considered even a vague threat to us, much less a threat that could strike at the very heart of our financial center.
There was a time when a nation could afford to wait for the uniformed enemy to fire the proverbial first shot before entering into a war and making the claim that it was a defensive war. Even if intelligence showed the enemy was on the move and mounting an offensive and forces were moved and deployed in answer to that enemy movement and all was poised simply waiting for that "first shot". It could still be called "defensive" even though the war had begun in answer to the enemy's first movements. The war had been engaged by both sides long before the first shot was ever fired and that first shot became nothing more than a formality.
Today, however, that first shot could realistically take the form of a suitcase nuclear weapon, or a vial of one of a dozen or so biological agents, or easily transportable cylinders of nerve gas. Can one reasonably be expected to wait for that "first shot" if that first shot could end a million lives?
Radical islam has fired the "fist shot" over and over. There have been dozens and dozens of serious attacks on Americans and America's interests going back to the late 1950's. Do we really need to wait until they manage an attack that would make 9/11 pale by comparison before we get the message that they are charged by their interpretation of their religion to either subdue us totally or kill us?
The president of Iran believes it is his destiny to bring about armageddon. Do you really want to wait to wait for someone like that to fire the first shot just so you can claim formally that your war was defensive in nature?
If someone tells you that they are going to punch you in the nose and advances on you fist drawn, do you really wait until your nose is bleeding before you take "defensive" action?
