Pro-war Objectivists refuse to toe the establishment line on so many issues. They believe in questioning environmentalist dogma, junk science, political correctness (on some matters), philosophical convention (heck, they think Aristotle and Rand are almost all you need to read), and a number of other sacred cows. They have no problem with historical revisionism having to do with the American economy, correctly believing, for example, that the U.S. government's "Progressive" trust-busting crusade was not founded on a genuine need to ameliorate economic injustice for the masses, and incorrectly believing, for example, that Big Business and the Robber Barons were always the persecuted victims of that era (as opposed to being, as they were in many cases, accomplices in such central-planning endeavors).
But on U.S. history as it concerns war? Revisionism is "crackpot," "anti-American," "leftist" and "evil." (Need I throw in "anti-mind," "anti-reality" and "anti-reason"?) Arguing that U.S. entry into WWI laid the groundwork for WWII, saying that WWII itself was not an unqualified crusade of Good vs. Evil (once you consider Stalin, for one), or even criticizing U.S. policy in the Middle East during the Cold War must be a sign of hating America, hating reason, and being an enemy of individualism. They think they're iconoclasts who are willing to look past the Establishment Line dogma, but they take the textbook version of U.S. history, as it concerns war, and swallow it whole, perhaps after removing the parts of it unfavorable to American foreign policy that even the textbooks include.
