Are (neo)conservatives now going antiwar?

From Merriam-Webster:

• Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive
• Pronunciation: \ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
• Function: noun
• Date: 1952
1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

Well, here we go. It's not certain yet, but it looks like the (neo)conservatives might start getting on the anti-Afghanistan war bandwagon. Why? Because they're suddenly antiwar ... of course not. Because it's now Obama's war.

This is so pathetic. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm antiwar. I'm anti-state (at least in a conservative, classical liberal sense.) But it now seems that influential conservative, Tony Blankley, now sees the light on Afghanistan. (He's a neoconservative as per Merrian-Webster's number 2 definition above.)

First, how did Tony Blankley feel about George Bush's war in Iraq. Well as late as ... uh ... last year, he was defending it as a means of putting evil terrorists in their place. He said (bold is mine):

I have been told that by U.S. government experts I trust. But that is an old fact. What Osama bin Laden famously said about recruitment is also true: People follow the strong horse. And the new fact is that as we are winning in Iraq, as we are killing al-Qaida fighters and other Islamist terrorists there by the truckload (along with other insurgent opponents of the Iraqi government we support with our blood and wealth), we are proving to be the strong horse after all and can expect to see a reduced attraction for young men to join the Islamist terrorist ranks.

If that's not bad enough, read the entire article, Was Iraq Worth It?

Okay, so going over to another country and killing those who defy you is good, because it shows how macho you are and keeps them from even thinking about coming to your country. Okay. Right. Check. I mean, as recent as last year, he even thought Vietnam was good, here's what he said in the same article above:

Shortly after the fall of Soviet Communism, I had dinner with a then-recently former senior Red army general. He told me that the Soviets were astounded and impressed by the fact that we were prepared to fight and lose 50,000 men in Vietnam, when the Soviets never thought we even had a strategic interest there. They thus calculated that they'd better be careful with the United States. What might we do, they thought, if our interests really were threatened?

Wow. How about them Americans, eh? They don't f___ around. Mess with them buddy, and pow! Okay, now that was an editorial written while George Bush was still president just last year.

Now that our president is Barack Hussein Obama II. And now that this Democrat president wants a more aggressive policy in Afghanistan, how does Tony Blankley feel about that? Well, it's like Vietnam!

Oh, so you mean we need to go over there and kick a bunch of butt, right?

Ah, no. Vietnam was a tragedy, stupid, and that's what's going to happen in Afghanistan. At least that's what Tony Blankley is saying today. Who knows what he'll be saying tomorrow?

I'm with Lew Rockwell on this:

Tony, repeat after me: “One, two, three, four, We don’t want your f___ war. Five, six, seven, eight, Organize and smash the state.”