If my daughter ever asks me what I did in the war, I'll wonder, "Which one?" Then, before she answers, I'll fill in for her my unambiguous history: "Nothing".

It's a background that affords me little pride. I'm old enough to have drawn a draft number for Vietnam, although the war had been over (for America) more than five months by the time I turned the magic/traumatic age 19. Some of those less-fortunate, I knew; I'd grown up with them. Because the war and their lives were mere strategic abstractions for privileged strangers, it's impossible to fault these low-wage heroes for warmaking so second-hand - even though they were the ones who dodged real bullets and were shattered, and sometimes killed, by real-time battles, onsite, in-country. They found themselves in harm's way not out of choice: Infrastructure supporting Selective Service's blind, dice-roll murders were these young mens' hometowns, their families and the sense of duty imparted from one paycheck generation to another. It was simple and there was no dodging it - when your country sends you to serve, you go.

Our subsequent conflicts, including the current, never-ending nightmare in the Mideast, I as well watch from sidelines, involved only to the extent of noticing how they all seem uniform: pointless sacrifices of many forced by safely remote few. Can there be any doubt that our hyperviolence in, say, Grenada, is little more than grown men and women in positions of responsibility playing God?

Do they beat their enervated chests, wrathful and brave in stateside comfort, securely absentee? Henry Kissinger once famously linked libido with this titanic power, which he called "the best aphrodesiac". So... is their bedroom performance improved, assuming age hasn't shriveled those ambitions?

And afterwards, how well do they sleep? If some puffball is sick enough to throw away lives for a hard-on, does the question even apply?

Finally, of course, do they profit from the bloodletting? Do they make money off it?

I know I reference this guy a lot when I'm posting about our Imperial disasters, but Justin Raimondo, over at Antiwar.com, has some good background on Sen. Dianne Feinstein's astounding appearance on yesterday's ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos, in which California's celebrated progressive pushed for implementation of the "McChrystal surge" in Afghanistan.

It's a position most Democrats reject, rightly sussing out such a troop escalation would mark Afghanistan as "Obama's War". The President's own campaign rhetoric argued the Afghan front was the "real war" - not Iraq - and indicated his approach would more resemble a police investigation than a rolling howitzer barrage. It was music to ears of a war-weary electorate, but has left him in the position of "damned if he does or doesn't" in that faraway quagmire. Now, even if he ditches and moves out U.S. forces, Republicans would accuse him - as they did with Truman and Democrats over China 60 years ago - of "losing" Afghanistan to the Taliban foe.

Let's give her all the benefit of the doubt and posit such political ass-covering was foremost in Feinstein's mind yesterday; it may be misdemeanor-disgraceful as strategtic motive, but her reasons could be much worse. And maybe they are, as Raimondo points out in today's column:

[Excerpting "The Bohemian"]: Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee...

Blum and Feinstein are laughing all the way to the bank as URS Corp and Perini grow fat on the military appropriations gravy train - the only sector of the U.S. economy that seems to be thriving. Perini, in which Blum owns a controlling interest, is the Democrats' Halliburton - indeed, Cheney's old corporate digs is Perini's chief competitor. Blum bought it when it was nearly broke in 1997. In 2005, Feinstein's membership on the subcommittee was "routinely" rotated, as the Soros-funded shills over at Media Matters made sure to point out, contrary to Bryne's assertions that she might have resigned under pressure. By that time Perini was raking in $1.7 billion in annual income.

It's Raimondo's suggestion that the kind of "neighborhood" and infrastructure tactics McChrystal would initiate would be a substantial cash boon to Blum's Perini, which specializes in that kind of support for combat-ready outreach. Does that play a part in Feinstein's unexpected hawkishness? Is she that far gone? That soulless?

In a column last week, Raimondo lambasted Code Pink chief and perennial dark cloud, Medea Benjamin, over her flip-flop on the Afghanistan war. Apparently, this year, supporting our endless, pointless conflict in the shadows of the Hindu Kush is practically as fashionable as Darfur; I suppose we can expect Angelina Jolie to copter into the Khyber Pass for a photo op with one of our preschool killer-drone casualties.

Benjamin's public excuse is that staying in for the long haul and defeating our Islamic-fundamentalist foes will elevate the status of Afghan women, implying our global crusade is propelled by truly revolutionary ideals. Womens' rights? Pack up your Kate Millet in an old kit bag and smile, smile, smile? It's one of the silliest and least believeable reasons I've yet heard for international bloodletting - but is emblematic of this blinkered, tendentious fool.

Not being a Libertarian, I can't follow Raimondo's points on many subjects. But on this nation's wars, and the motivation behind them, the views of the noninterventionist Right are refreshingly free of the Left's dated dogmatic baggage; it is clear-eyed and passionate in a way we'd expect the antiwar movement to be in general.

But, it seems, those we'd normally trust are missing in action, confused by sideline issues. Or they are hypocritical... and float along with political trends.

Or they are corrupt sell-outs.