Dave Smith's Best Argument Against War (and Neoconservatives)

Political commentator Dave Smith has been a staunch critic of neoconservatives and their advocacy for military intervention. His skillful defense when facing attacks from Douglas Murray on a recent podcast catapulted him into the national spotlight.

Before I get into his background, let's cover his core argument.

The Hiroshima Bombing

In a May 2024 episode of Part of the Problem, Smith stated, 

“The Hiroshima bombing killed 140,000 people, mostly civilians - women, kids, elderly. Neocons say, 'It saved lives by ending the war.' That's a cold-blooded calculus. You don't get to nuke a city and call it mercy. It's a war crime, plain and simple, and we should be ashamed, not proud.” 

Dave Smith criticized the justification for the atomic bombing, arguing that it represents a moral failing glossed over by neoconservatives and war hawks who frame it as a necessary act to end World War II.

He contends that the narrative of “necessity” ignores the horror of targeting civilians and sets a dangerous precedent for justifying mass violence.

During a February 2025 discussion, Dave Smith said, 

“Hiroshima wasn't just a military target - it was a city full of people who had no say in the war. Neocons love to rewrite history, saying it was the only way to stop Japan. But Japan was already on its knees, and there's evidence they were ready to surrender. We dropped that bomb to flex on the Soviets, not to save lives. It's a stain on our conscience.” 

Recently, numerous historians have questioned the necessity of the bombing, pointing to declassified documents suggesting Japan's imminent surrender and the U.S.'s geopolitical motivations in the early Cold War.

Smith also ties this event to neoconservative ideology more broadly, arguing that their willingness to defend the Hiroshima bombing reflects a deeper disregard for human life in pursuit of power. 

“Neocons will justify Hiroshima like it's a math problem - 'more lives saved than lost.' That's sociopathic. If you can stomach vaporizing 140,000 civilians, you'll justify anything. That's why they keep pushing new wars.”

The stance that the 'good guys' are entitled to kill civilians to advance a greater good has carried over into subsequent conflicts.

“Every war kills kids - Hiroshima, Vietnam, Iraq, Gaza. If you're not torn up about even one child dying, you're numb. Neocons want us to be numb so they can keep the war machine going. I say we should feel every single loss, because that's what keeps us human.”

Smith said this in a March 2025 episode of Part of the Problem, reflecting on the moral implications of war. 

One Child's Death

“If one child dies in a war - whether it's Gaza, Ukraine, or anywhere else - we should feel sad. That's a human life, not a statistic. Neocons act like collateral damage is just the cost of doing business. I say that's a failure of humanity. One dead kid should break your heart and make you question the whole damn war.”

This argument came up in the context of discussing civilian casualties in Gaza, where Smith challenged Douglas Murray's defense of Israel's two-year military assault on Gaza. He argued that neoconservatives often dehumanize victims by focusing on strategic goals over individual lives. 

In the same episode, he added, 

“The neocons will say, 'Oh, Hamas uses human shields, so it's their fault.' Fine, but if your response kills a kid, you don't get to shrug and move on. You should feel that loss in your bones. If you don't, you've lost your soul.”

Connecting the Two Arguments

“The neocons love their Hitler-Churchill fan fiction. Every bad guy is Hitler - Saddam, Assad, Putin, Iran's leaders - and every war they want is 1939 all over again. They cast themselves as Churchill, the brave defender, while anyone who questions them is an appeaser. It's a tired script to guilt-trip us into war.”

The oversimplification distorts reality, most modern conflicts don't mirror the unique scale and ideology of Nazi Germany, nor do they require the same response.

“Zelenskyy isn't Churchill, and Putin isn't Hitler. Ukraine isn't the Sudetenland. But the neocons push this narrative to make you think if we don't send billions and risk World War III, we're letting the Nazis win. It's emotional blackmail, not reason.”

On X in early May 2025, Smith doubled down, posting, “Neocons see Hitler in every shadow - Iran, China, even TikTok. Meanwhile, they're Churchill in their own heads, cigar and all. It's a delusion to keep the war machine humming.” 

He's argued this tactic, rooted in post-9/11 fearmongering, exploits historical memory to rally support for policies that primarily serve the military-industrial complex, not American interests.

Dave Smith argues that neocons frequently invoke Chamberlain - known for his policy of appeasement toward Hitler in the 1930s, most notably with the Munich Agreement of 1938 - to demonize any opposition to their war-driven policies and to frame non-intervention as cowardice or moral failure.

“The neocons love to drag Chamberlain into every argument. If you don't want to bomb Iran or send another billion to Ukraine, you're Neville Chamberlain, handing over the Sudetenland. It's a cheap trick to make you feel like a spineless traitor for wanting peace.”

He emphasized that this comparison is a deliberate tactic to paint anti-war voices as weak, ignoring the complexities of modern conflicts that don't align with the lead-up to World War II.

“If you question Israel's actions or America's role in escalating tensions, the neocons say you're Chamberlain, appeasing Hamas or Iran. It's nonsense. Not every situation is Munich 1938, and not every enemy is Hitler waiting to take over the world.”

Smith argued this framing oversimplifies issues, forcing a false dichotomy where the only options are aggressive intervention or shameful surrender.

On X in late April 2025, Smith posted, “Neocons call anyone who disagrees with them Chamberlain, like we're all one bad handshake from Nazi tanks rolling in. Newsflash: it's 2025, not 1938. Stop with the history lessons and start with some common sense.”

What do you think?