When American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan as retaliation for an accidental Quran burning, Rush Limbaugh asked last week:

“It’s gotten to the point: Why are we there? If this is the end result of us being there, let’s get these people out, bring them home and the hell with the place over there…”

Now, is Limbaugh suggesting America adopt an “isolationist” foreign policy? Is he saying we should “cut and run” in Afghanistan? No, Rush is reasonably asking why we’re still there. Two years ago Limbaugh said:

“The thing that bothers me about this is that we’re there, whether we should have done or what we’ve done here or for is now irrelevant. There’s only one thing to do: win. You know, ‘What about Afghanistan?’ Easy. We win, they lose.”

Today, Rush and few Americans obviously don’t see any “easy” victories in Afghanistan. Today, Limbaugh and most Americans obviously don’t think asking “Why are we there?” is irrelevant.

I first became a conservative listening to Rush Limbaugh as a teenager. In the two decades since, I’ve come to learn that foreign policy is the one issue where most conservatives tend to be the least conservative.

Conservative behavior on foreign policy is similar to liberal behavior on domestic policy. If liberals never concede that welfare spending has made the problem of poverty worse, conservatives never concede that our constant intervention overseas might be making the problem of terrorism worse. Liberals always say we will finally end poverty if we would just spend more money. Conservatives always say we will finally end terrorism if we would just fight more wars. The fact that none of this ever happens doesn’t seem to phase either camp.

Conservatives who now ask what reason we have for staying in Afghanistan are absolutely correct to ask the question, the problem is their timing. Many on the Left and Right have been asking why America is still in Afghanistan long before we reached the decade mark. Many have asked what “victory” America hoped to achieve. Many have long wondered whether there was real “victory” we ever could achieve.

Asking questions of one’s government used to be a primary function of conservatives, but on foreign policy, conservatives have more often decided to demonize anyone who dares question our government.

Conservatives are finally questioning Afghanistan because it has become painfully obvious that we’re stuck in a quagmire. But wasn’t this always the case? If we had entertained more questions about the wisdom of nation-building, the limits of democracy in the Middle East, the impossible task we were asking of our soldiers—could we have avoided our current dilemma? Cost benefit analyses are inherently conservative. Spending lives and dollars for no good reason is not.

Rush Limbaugh is absolutely right: “Why are we there? If this is the end result of us being there, let’s get these people out, bring them home and the hell with the place over there…”

Saying “to hell with that place” is not “isolationism.” It’s rational. Saying “bring them home” is not “cutting and running,” it’s salvaging and saving.

If we’re going to put our best and bravest in harm’s way, Americans should always make sure it’s for a damn good reason. There’s nothing patriotic about carelessly sending our troops around the globe for just any old reason—and there’s certainly nothing conservative about it.