The American Spectator : Rumble Foreign Policy

Text Size

Rumble Foreign Policy

By W. James Antle, III on 6.14.11 @ 6:09AM

Wars once again divide Republicans, restarting a conservative debate.

Over the last year, the number of House Republicans voting to pull out of Afghanistan has tripled to 26. A New York Times/CBS News poll found that 43 percent of rank-and-file Republicans want to reduce our Afghan footprint, a percentage double November 2009. In the House, more Republicans than Democrats voted for a resolution by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) terminating our military involvement in Libya.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, smelling an “isolationist turn” among House Republicans, labeled these 87 GOP congressmen “the Kucinich Republicans.” The editorialists also worried about executive power: “If Mr. Obama won’t defend his office, then Republicans ought to.”

But why is Libya our war, aside from the president’s decision to undertake “kinetic military action”? Who are these rebels we are fighting for? And why should Republicans in Congress defend the powers of Obama’s office rather than their own?

The debate is reminiscent of the 1990s, when grassroots conservatives increasingly turned against Bill Clinton’s humanitarian interventions while others on the right defended Democrat wars. When Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) traveled to the Heritage Foundation to denounce the Kosovo war — she said simply that Clinton was “assuming too many commitments where our interests are vague” and “injecting American troops into political situations that pose no threat to us or our allies” — the New York Post editorial page was not amused.

Under the headline “Kay Bailey Isolationism,” the Post editorialized that Hutchison was conjuring up foreign policy ideas from “the fever swamps of [the GOP’s] Pat Buchanan wing” and the benighted “era of Robert A. Taft.” The criticism of the Democratic president was also similar to today’s: “The problem with Bill Clinton is not that he’s been too quick on the trigger — using what Hutchison calls, preposterously, ‘gunpoint diplomacy’ — but that he usually waits far too long to act and, when he does so, he acts incompetently.”

Likening conservative skeptics of the Clinton-era Balkans adventure to the Arab street, an editor at the Weekly Standard wrote, “When the ‘conservative street’ is wrong, it should be corrected — or ignored.” Bill Kristol later recalled that when his magazine backed Clinton in Bosnia, “a not insignificant chunk of our original subscribers immediately canceled out on us.”

Jeane Kirkpatrick, whose neoconservative affiliations stretched from Commentary magazine to the American Enterprise Institute and who derided “Blame America First” Democrats at the GOP convention that renominated Ronald Reagan, publicly hoped that the end of the Cold War would let America be “a normal country in a normal time.” As late as 2000, George W. Bush was promising a “humble foreign policy.”

The 9/11 terrorist attacks short-circuited the conservative debate over foreign policy. There would be no post-Cold War holiday from history. Events in distant lands could clearly threaten lives in America. A “muscular foreign policy” was one again in vogue, unquestioned except by a few malcontents on the right.

Now questions are coming again. Was the Kosovo Liberation Army an American ally? Is Hamid Karzai? The recipients of U.S. aid in Pakistan, where bin Laden hid? What about the Iranian-influenced political parties participating in the free elections in Iraq? Those elections weren’t “free” for the Americans who spent blood and treasure securing them.

Few conservatives want to cut the sinews of our national military muscle: vital weapons systems, replacement of equipment that frequently dates back to the Reagan administration, pay for troops. “Maintaining a strong national defense is the most basic of the federal government’s responsibilities,” says former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. “However, building schools, roads, and hospitals in other countries are not among those basic obligations.”

Especially when there is little money left for schools, roads, and hospitals at home. “If we’re going to cut programs for children who need milk in the morning, if we’re going to cut programs for seniors who need a sandwich at lunch, if we’re going to cut veterans benefits, then, for God’s sake, let’s bring back our troops from Afghanistan,” thundered Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), a Class of 1994 alumnus who represents one of the most conservative and pro-military districts in the nation.

To many on the right, these musings mark Johnson and Jones Kucinich Republicans, unserious about foreign policy and national defense. It remains to be seen whether this debate will endure — or last only as long as the Democrats hold the White House.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (161) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.14.11 @ 6:26AM

These wars are bankrupting America and have long since lost their value to national security, that is, if they had any true value from the beginning.

This is one issue Ron Paul is right about. There is nothing for us there anymore and the war theater is about to be expanded even further.

All in all, an exercise in simpleton land.

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 9:02AM

In retrospect the post-1945 era gave us the illusion that progress is anything more than snail's pace. At this rate Afghanistan will become a real nation hundreds of years from now.

Vern Crisler | 6.14.11 @ 9:59AM

Ron Paul is right? Please. That man blames the victim instead of the victimizers. They attack us because we're over there, he said. No, they attack us because we're over here. It's true that we ought not to overextend ourselves -- only a fool fights on two fronts as the saying goes -- but we can't put our heads in the sand and hope our enemies will go away. Not going to happen.

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 10:04AM

Then US troops have to be yanked everywhere from S. Korea to Germany, and transferred to the meat-mincer of Central Asia.

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 10:32AM

When did Afghans attack us over here?

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 10:33AM

Or anywhere else because we are here?

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 10:36AM

Tell it to AS, not me.

Next September it will be ten years, and the decision was made by higher ups.

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 1:47PM

I thought I was telling it to Vern Crisler but hit the wrong reply button. Sorry.

Oldefarte| 6.14.11 @ 3:05PM

The majority of the Muslim terrorists from around the world have/are traveling to Afganistan for terrorism training purposes. No, none/few of the attacking terrorists were from Afganistan, but THEY ALL TRAINED THERE!!!!!!!!!!

Anommynous| 6.14.11 @ 1:17PM

They gave sanctuary to terrorists who did. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, sheltered by the Taliban.

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 1:43PM

tell it to Bob K.
I had no part in planning the post- 9/11 wars (even if I do work for the Bilateral commission on eugenics propaganda for the Queen of England and her fluoridating Illuminati).

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 1:52PM

One more time:
We fought the wars so Sarah Palin could pose nekkid for Boys Life, and the Jesuits could place tinfoil in my WWI spiked helmet that the Kaiser loaned to me at Doorn after we both danced the loop de loop with Isadora Duncan and Eleanor Roosevelt...

Anommynous| 6.14.11 @ 2:16PM

What on earth are you talking about? Both of your replies to me are utterly incoherent. Are you really Alan Brooks, or are you somebody posing as Alan Brooks to make him look like a buffoon? Granted, Alan Brooks is a buffoon, but even I didn't think he was this much of a buffoon. So, if the real Alan Brooks is reading this, you should know that there is an imposter posting silly posts to tarnish your good name.

Oldefarte| 6.14.11 @ 3:07PM

Now, finally, all of us are possibly capable of truly understanding your thoughts.....MAYBE!!!!

Drunken Sailor| 6.14.11 @ 3:58PM

Have you been over to DeeSee's place?

Jeamar37| 6.14.11 @ 4:27PM

How about putting them here in Az. and along the rest of the Southwest border.?

Carol| 6.15.11 @ 12:40PM

You might want to actually read the reasons Bin Laden gave for attacking us. It had nothing to do with "hating us for our freedoms" or because our daughters go to college or wear short skirts. It was because the USA interevenes in their affairs and props up tyrannical governments that maim and kill Arabs. if you think US foreign policy is a pristine and pure thing, think again. We treat other countries like dirt -- even Canada.

Occam's Tool| 6.14.11 @ 10:39AM

Libya is an idiocy, as the rebels will be worse. In Egypt, we supported a kleptocracy and then cut and ran, but the rebels will be worse. In Syria and Iran, we stupidly don't support the rebels, because the leaders can't be worse.

We have an interest in two things there---stopping sharia (which is aggressive and hostile to us) and ensuring our oil. Everything should turn on that. Isolationism won't work, but neither will a loopy premise that "everyone wants freedom."

Some want Sharia and Submission. They need to be fought. Therefore, at this time Libya probably does not meet the test. Iraqi presence MAY be needed to counterbalance Iran, and we need to exterminate the vermin in Af-Pak and go home.

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 11:11AM

With all the time and money, (not to mention the lives of brave American men and women), we have spent ensuring "our" (?) oil (and that of Europe, Australia and New Zealand's also) we could have been investing it in what is really our own oil wealth. But no, we have chosen to regulate it and tax it into oblivion along with Nuclear Energy.

Our politicians: Liberals, neocons and some conservatives along with bureaucrats and tree hugging environmentalists have too long regarded the lives of our military men as a cheap form of currency to promote their various political views and dreams of world wide Democracy!

RCV| 6.14.11 @ 11:11AM

Occam: I'm with you on Afghanistan-Pakistan: finiish the job with Al-Qaeda and leave. But I'm completely flipped from you on Iraq/Libya. It was Iraq that was the giant mistake, the very thing that empowered Iran and has now put their Shiite allies in charge of Iraq. In the long run, it will prove the most disastrous mistake we've ever made in the region.

In Libya, on the other hand, we have a maniac who has blown up planes with hundreds of Americans aboard, and directly ordered the killings of American soldiers in Germany. That's a guy we have the right and duty to take out.

W| 6.14.11 @ 12:09PM

Iran was "empowered" before the Iraq war, and has supported all the terrorists groups since 1979 .Libya was not threat. I agree that Quadaffi should have been killed for what he did (let us use precise words "kill" not "take out.") But killing him doesn not justify bombing the country, and killing civilians, unless we want to make assasination of foreign leaders part of our foreign policy.
By endorsing Libya and not Iraq, you are simply following the Democrat line. If Obama had invaded Iraq, the dems would favor it. Obama has not withdrawn from Iraq, where is all the democrat fury now for that war?

RCV| 6.15.11 @ 11:06AM

Whatever the wisdom of getting into Iraq, we're there. The disengagement has to be done with the least damage to US interests and presitge.

Far more damage would result to Libyan citizens if NATO let Qaddhafi have free rein, than results from the limited NATO bombing strikes. We need only look to Syria for affirmation of that.

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 11:34AM

RCV,

Why is it our business if Qaddhafi rules or not?

The only reason O'Bama has involved us in this mess is to keep Libyan oil flowing into western Europe. He isn't doing it for humanitarian reasons, or, else, he would be doing the same in Syria.
But, he's not doing the same in Syria, is he RCV?

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!
(Sound familiar?)

RCV| 6.15.11 @ 1:22PM

I'd be delighted to have NATO assist the overthrow of the thug Assad as well. But the assessment of intervening there involves the dangers of drawing Iran into the conflict as well, and the the effect on Israel's security. The best thing that could happen is an internal toppling of Assad. That would be a real blow, not only to Iran, but to Hamas and Hezbollah as well.

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 1:38PM

RCV,

Why is an internal toppling of Assad the best thing that could happen, but, not an internal toppling of Qaddhafi?

While you attempt to be consistent by being in favor of NATO strikes in both Libya and Syria, the last part of your statement reveals inconsistency.

Also, what is Iran going to do if we bomb Syrian troops? Go to the UN? No, the only reason O'Bama intervened in Libya, and not Syria, is because Syria doesn't have any oil. This is Kosovo all over again.

RCV| 6.15.11 @ 3:08PM

An internal toppling of Qaddhafi clearly would have been the best thing. NATO intervened only when it was clear that Qaddhafi had the rebels cornered in Benghazzi and was about to wipe them out. The prospects in Syria are still undetermined -- it appears from reports in Al Jazeera and elsewhere that Syrian army unit defections continue to increase.

If insuring a continued flow of oil were the deciding issue in Libya, no intervention would have been the chosen course. Qaddhafi had been a reliable supplier, and Italy in particular had established quite chummy relationships with him.

Nick| 6.16.11 @ 12:29AM

RCV,

Assad is constantly wiping out civilians, every day. I could give you some links to some horrific video of the aftermath of executions, it you would like?

The reason for the intervention in Libya was because they couldn't take the chance of rebels blowing up oil pipelines, if most of their forces had been destroyed at Benghazi.

Attacking the flow of oil would've been the only way for the insurgents to hurt Qaddhafi at that point. This is why NATO intervened, in my opinion.

RCV| 6.16.11 @ 1:34PM

It's possible, although I think the long term guarantee of oil from Libya was a safer bet with The Leader at the helm than the coalition of rebels in charge.

The video from Syria is indeed disgusting. I've been following it each day on Al-Jezerra and the Jerusalem Post. The Assad family has a long and disgusting legacy of utter brutality, and it will be a day of celebration for everyone when they are finally swept away.

cfountain72 | 6.15.11 @ 9:27AM

Occam...hmm...let's see...
1. Stopping Sharia law....so we have 300 mill Americans, of which about 1.5% call themselves Muslim. Of those, the vast majority are actually here because they didn't want to live under whatever conditions existed in their home country. So, using the math above, tell me again how Sharia Law 'takes over' the US? It barely rules the countries in the Middle East.
2. Oil. Oil will find its way to whomever is willing to pay for it, whether we are there or not. Notice that China isn't paying for aircraft carrier battle groups cruising the Persian Gulf, yet somehow they seem to receive the oil they need. You've been sold a bill of goods if you think we 'need' to be there for oil to reach us.
3. Iraq? It was our decision to destroy that nation that drove it into the arms of Iran. Didn't take a foreign policy major to recognize that the vast majority of Iraqi's are actually Shiites, ruled by a minority Sunni population. And in Iran, we have... a majority Shiite population. Nice work, neoclowns. Staying past our 'invitation' is only an invitation to disaster. The groups responsible for reducing violence there are expecting us to leave when we agreed to, and if we don't, there will be hell to pay.

Put simply, our myriad counterproductive interventions helped cause our current unsustainable plight. I'm glad to hear that some more in the GOP are finally graduating to Foreign Policy 101.

Peace be with you.

Southern_Comment| 6.15.11 @ 5:31PM

Hmmm, maybe you should stop listening to liberals, the gurus of the history that is only to be told in how they wanted to see it.
It wasn't just about oil fields. I recall a little matter about Saddam poisoning Kuwait's water supply. Where is that compassion? Peace be with us? I guess that 'us' wouldn't have included the millions of Kuwaitis that would have had to live under the rule of Saddam, and fyi that wasn't a great life for them, just check out the non-rewritten history of how he enjoyed the use of gas on villages within his own country.
Also, I hardly think that a man who pretended to be producing nuclear weaponry to keep Iran at bay, can hardly be described as the leader of a country 'driven into the arms of Iraq'. Tell me, the history books that the Liberals have done so well in reengineering, do they all have a picture of Fabio on the cover, or were there jus a select few who were so privileged?

Jack in Wi.| 6.14.11 @ 5:20PM

Anything the four K's [ Kissinger, Kagan, Kristol and Krauthammer ] are for, I am against. They have led America over the cliff too many times.

Nick| 6.14.11 @ 11:35PM

This is because you think that the Joooooozzzzzzz attacked us on September 11th, 2001, Jack.
Putz.

Jack in Wi.| 6.15.11 @ 1:07AM

5 Mossad agents were jumping for joy and high fiving on the Jersey Shore as the World Trade Center collapssed. They were also taking pictures and videos of the collapse for the celebration back in Tel Aviv. I saw all about it on the 4 day report on Brit Hume's show on Fox News. It was reported by Carl Cameron. It also was on ABC and other news outlets as well. That was it for me and Israel. I turned off Rush Linbaugh and Shaun Hannity after they went all Israel, all the time ,after 9/11. Now if you like Israel, that is your privilige. I just think you can support your own religious homeland with your own money and blood and not that of the America people. The many hundreds of billions we have shoveled to Israel is nothing but an unconstitutional subsidy of the Jewish religion. The country is broke. Before one penny is cut from Americans all foreign aid should be stopped. Most of it goes to crooked kleptocrats in the Middle East, Africa, and Pakistan.

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 1:23AM

Yes, Jack, yes.

5 Mossad agents jumping for joy, and don't forget the Christian baby killing rabbis too.
Oh...and HALLIBUTON!!!!!, they were also there. And, LBJ, Nixon, and Lee Harvey Oswald...don't forget them, Jack!

Oh...oh...oh...and the aliens from Area 51 (but we both know they were from Area 52, don't we Jack?)
Oooooohhhhhhh! And the Loch Ness Monster! He was in the Hudson River flying the planes by remote control.
Or did he fire the missiles? I can't keep this conspiracy straight Jack! Help me out, would you? Pleeeeaaaaassssse?

The Jooooooozzzzzz are in my computer!
HELP!

Herb Tarlek| 6.15.11 @ 1:33AM

You deny that there were Mossad agents arrested in Jersey after celebrating the attack? This is a matter of public record.

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 1:55AM

Are you claiming that the Jooooozzzzzz! brought down the Twin Towers?

It was also a matter of the public record that a man who was on the 83rd floor survived the collapse. This turned out not to be true, of course.

Five Israelis were detained, found to have done nothing wrong by the FBI, and allowed to return to Israel. End of story.
(Except for kook conspiracy theorists, that is.)

Herb Tarlek| 6.15.11 @ 9:26AM

Conspiracy or not, they were seen & photographed celebrating. Why were they celebrating? After they we were released went on television & stated that they were there to document the event. How did they know? As stated elsewhere, you get pick your opinions but you don't get to pick your facts.

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 10:36AM

"[...] they were [...] photographed celebrating."

Source or link, please?
If they were, in fact, celebrating it was probably because they were, from the looks of them, a bunch of lefty, dope smokin' hippies.

"[...] & stated that they were there to document the event."

Just like everybody else who went outside and started taking video, i.e., documenting what was happening that day, huh?

Were Marilyn Monroe, the Lindbergh baby, and Elvis also there, Herb?

RCV| 6.15.11 @ 1:19PM

Nick -- There is no point in arguing with conspiracy theorists, especially those who probably believe that the 5 Israelis were also gathering the blood of Christian children for passover matzohs.

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 1:42PM

RCV,

But, it's so much fun to poke them! Ha-ha!

Kind of like when we were kids and threw rocks at a hornets nest.

Bob Grant| 6.14.11 @ 10:21PM

Exactly. You cannot civilize a country living in the 7th century. Also, if I read about some operative handing over another suitcase full of millions of dollars to some tribal leader only to spend that money attacking our troops I'm going to puke!!

We cannot afford anymore the spilled blood or wasted treasure. Send our boys home.

Clint| 6.14.11 @ 6:32AM

Polls are reflecting former Air Force Officer Dr. Ron Paul.
Monday, May 09, 2011:
"Voters feel more strongly than ever that U.S. troops should be brought home from Afghanistan right away or a timetable should be set to bring them back within a year.

A new Rasmussen Reports nation telephone survey finds that 35% of Likely U.S. Voters now favor the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, the highest level of support to date. Twenty-one percent (21%) more support the establishment of a firm timetable to bring the troops home within a year.

The combined total of 56% is up four points from the beginning of March, up 13 points from 43% last September, and up 19 points from September 2009. "

RCV| 6.14.11 @ 11:13AM

...and polls continue to affirm that "Doctor" Ron Paul is disliked and distrusted by most Republicans. Left-wing Democrats, on the other hand, are really warming to the guy.

Jack in Wi.| 6.14.11 @ 5:23PM

Drudge has had Ron Paul up in 2 polls in the last couple of months, as the Republican most likely to beat Obama. The people are sick of the endless wars and payoffs to the elites. Ron Paul for President. Rand Paul for Vice President. That is the winning ticket

Clint| 6.14.11 @ 6:07PM

Each time Obama LawBoy RCV Badmouths Dr.Ron Paul, That's a Plus For Dr.Ron Paul.
As Rush Says, It Will Tell You Who They Fear.

Americans Will Vote Their Wallets.

Dr.Ron Paul Is The Chairman Of The House Domestic Monetary And Technology Sub-Committee & Michelle Bachmann Is A Member Of The Sub-Committee, As Well.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

cfountain72 | 6.15.11 @ 9:33AM

Amen RCV!
We can't have some kook who was right about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the housing bubble, abortion, the drug war, taxes, the Patriot Act, torture, guns, state's rights, and Obamacare anywhere near the White House. Much better to have a principled conservative like Romney in power.
Peace be with you.

Kenny| 6.14.11 @ 6:54AM

Personally, I'm, sick of these nation building war.

The neo-cons like Bill Kristol can go either jump in a lake or fight their kumbaya wars themseves. Now the latter would be something to see, wouldn't it?

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 10:40AM

Do any of these guys have relatives fighting over there? Do they have anything to do with the American families who do? If they do, it is time they listed them on the masthead of "The Weekly Standard" to prove they have the courage they expect ordinary Americans to have in dying for their policies.

Carol| 6.15.11 @ 12:53PM

Indeed, that is the litmus test. When America is in real peril Americans will line up to defend their country. They'll lie about their age and health to protect their freedom, their families, and their country. When America is not in a real danger it is much harder to get people to sign on to make the ultimate sacrifice. The fact that the people who shout the loudest about the necessity of the war are NOT themselves lining up at the recruiting office says everything. Kristol and neocons like him are blood sucking parasites, seeking to feed off other people's lives like vampires. And why...? Apparently for their own entertainment.

PCP Smoker| 6.14.11 @ 7:16AM

The Democracy Project needs to end, or at least ignored. I'm no Ron Paul kook, we were right to go after Hussein and The Taliban but only as the means to break things and kill people.
The Bush approach of fighting to not offend or the Obama approach of bashing the military while expanding and creating missions need to go.

WJ| 6.14.11 @ 8:29AM

Yep, going after Hussein was such a good idea. We spent a trillion dollars borrowed from China, got 5,000 Americans killed, and basically turned over the presidency to Obama, just so we could make a stronger ally for Iran.

Con Chef (NB) | 6.14.11 @ 12:07PM

Right. And the WMDs that he had just vanished. Oh, wait. There's that huge amount of yellowcake uranium we found over there being destroyed in Canada right now. Marcus Luttrell wrote in his book, "Lone Survivor," about his unit finding the vans believed to carry the mobile centrifuges on the Syrian border. In his words, "whatever was in there had been removed. And in a hurry." I think I'll take the common sense route & the word of a SEAL over that of the talking heads.

Quartermaster| 6.14.11 @ 6:37PM

BillT over at Castle Argghhh went through the evidence of WMDs in Sadaam's Iraq (look for the 3 posts titled "Historical Revisionism"). The military had the goods on Sadaam, but allowed the Demonrats to rave and lie about it because they didn't want to expand the war into Syria and Iran. I think the Israelis took care of what went into Syria in that looooooong convoy.

Having said that, we should not have stayed in Iraq long. All we need to do was take out the WMDs, kill Sadaam and his regime and find another strongman and give him the keys, telling him "don't start trying to get nukes and other bad stuff, or we're coming back to kill you and yours." Instead we took teh country apart and our politicos have been too incompetent to put Humpty back together again. Putting Bremer in was an act of monumental stupidity, along with sending the Army home with nothing, and no reason not to cause trouble.

Vern Crisler | 6.14.11 @ 10:00AM

Dittos PCP....

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 1:50PM

We fought the wars so Sarah Palin could pose nekkid for Boys Life, and the Jesuits could place tinfoil in my WWI spiked helmet that the Kaiser loaned to me at Doorn after we both danced the loop de loop with Isadora Duncan...

Oldefarte| 6.14.11 @ 3:11PM

You are in serious need of a gifted psychiatrist!!!!

Drunken Sailor| 6.14.11 @ 4:02PM

Relax OF, He was confusing me too but then I figure it out. He is subbing for DeeSee. That or he wears spiked helmuts while dancing with dead woman and dreaming of a nekkid Sara Palin.

vb| 6.14.11 @ 7:19AM

It is not so much a question of when we leave, but how we leave. Our departure should not be seen as a victory for our enemies or as a result of pressure from an electorate that can be scared by one more suicide bombing. Let's give Ryan Crocker a chance to manage things before we say bye.

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 10:42AM

Get them out of there today and put them on our Southern Border tomorrow!

Red Phillips | 6.14.11 @ 7:35AM

"A "muscular foreign policy" was one again in vogue, unquestioned except by a few malcontents on the right."

I am happy to say that I was one of those malcontents. I was a non-interventionist before non-interventionism was cool.

Jack in Wi.| 6.14.11 @ 5:29PM

Red: How come Buchanan Ron Paul, Bob Novak , Joe Sobran,and you and I knew Saddam Hussain had no weapons of mass destruction but Cheney, Powell, Bush, Wolfowitz, Runpot and Rice didn't?

Red Phillips | 6.14.11 @ 5:43PM

Jack, I suspect Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, et al did know it was all a ruse. It was ploy to get us into the war of choice they wanted.

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 12:16AM

Mr. Phillips,

So, you believe in your heart that President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, et al, knew for a fact that there were no WMDs, and, still sent our brave American warriors to fight, and die, for a lie?

Wouldn't that make their actions evil? Anyone who would treat their fellow citizen's lives so cavalierly would have to be some kind of monster, would they not? What was their motive? How did they conceal their evilness so easily?

It's easy to believe in these conspiracy theories because not much thought has to be expended on them. But, once you scratch the surface into the layers that make up human emotions and decision making, they become less easy to defend.

It is not hard to see Bubba 'the pervert' Clinton risking some lives or ordering attacks for political motives, because we know how bad he treated those close to him, let alone strangers.

Yet, as bad as Bubba was, he didn't send whole armies into harms way to help himself politically. He took the easiest way possible which had the least risk, i.e., Kosovo. Just as O'Bama is doing right now in Libya. You Paulbots are saying that President Bush was worse than Bubba and Ditherer.

It is very hard to assign the character flaws of Clinton and O'Bama to President Bush's administration, as those men were all men of honor. Not perfect, but honorable men.

p.s. Yes, it was a "war of choice." The choice was Saddam's, since he didn't abide by the cease-fire agreement (UN resolutions) from Operation Desert Storm. You Paulbots always seem to forget this annoying little fact. Why?

Jack in Wi.| 6.15.11 @ 1:21AM

Baloney: Hussain was under ground inspection for years, even just before we attacked. We overflew the place many thousands of times with spy planes and satellites. He had nothing and the Clinton and the Bush gangs all knew it. Iraq was a small country that was decimated by the first war and under embargo since. We were keeping an eye on it for a couple billion a year. The final cost of the Iraq war, if it ever ends will be in the trillions. There will be well over 60,000 casualties of Americans. Thats not counting millions of Iraqi casualties and displacements. Yes: Bush the Clintons, Cheney and their gangs are murdering criminals who should be held accountable. That's what Neuremberg was all about.

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 1:34AM

Yes, Jack, yes.

Saddam was under inspection by the aliens from Area 51 (but we both know they were from Area 52, don't we?) Oh...yeah...and Bigfoot, he also inspected Saddam, but not in the same way as the aliens!
Yutz.

Red Phillips | 6.15.11 @ 12:53PM

Nick, no one knew anything "for a fact." How could they? But I think they knew it was unlikely Saddam had significant WMDs. I remember thinking after Powell presented his WND case to the UN "Is that all they got?" The WMD argument was simply a convenient excuse they latched onto, among many, for a war of choice that they already wanted for other reasons.

Why did they want war with Iraq? I don't know for sure? Why don't you ask PNAC? They were calling for Iraqi "regime change" during the Clinton Administration. I suspect they saw 9/11 as a convenient excuse.

And regarding your last paragraph, you think the US should be enforcing UN resolutions? Newsflash buddy. Real conservatives disagree with the US joining the UN in the first place and want us to get out. Also, we shouldn't have fought the First Gulf War, of which the cease-fire agreements were a result, in the first place. It wasn't our fight.

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 2:51PM

Mr. Phillips,

"Nick, no one knew anything 'for a fact.'"

So, you would have had the President of the United States, after the attacks of September 11th, when he was shown conflicting information on Iraq's WMDs, give the benefit of the doubt to the madman Saddam Hussein?

After the worst attack on U.S. soil since the attack on Pearl Harbor, you would have had President Bush gamble with the lives of all Americans and do nothing, just because Secretary Powell couldn't pull a Perry Mason at the UN and say, "Here are Saddam's WMDs."?

Not to mention, Saddam's own generals thought they had stockpiles of WMD. But, President Bush was supposed to have known what Saddam's own generals didn't, is that right?

And, Saddam did everything he could to act like he had WMDs, by stonewalling the weapons inspectors. If the police come upon a known crazy person, who acts like he has a gun in his pocket, and won't show them his hands; don't the police have to act as though the crazy man is armed? Or, should they just ignore him?

PNAC was calling for regime change because Saddam was violating the cease-fire agreement. Especially, the Oil-for-Food scam and firing at U.S. and U.K. aircraft.

Newsflash buddy, I don't want to be part of the UN and wish we would kick them out of our country.

"Also, we shouldn't have fought the First Gulf War, of which the cease-fire agreements were a result, in the first place."

But, guess what? We did. I didn't agree with going to war with Iraq in '90, and I was there! Although, we had been flying the U.S. flag on Kuwaiti tankers, as protection, since '86, if I remember correctly.

Like it or not (and I don't) the U.S. is a member of the UN, by treaty. And, like it or not, the Constitution allows for treaties. It also allows for Congress to "[...] define and punish [...] Offenses against the Laws of Nations [...]."

After September 11th, 2001, President Bush had not only a right, but a duty, to show our enemies that we weren't going to put up with their garbage anymore. It was Mr. Bush's duty to use every legal weapon he had to accomplish this.

After disrupting al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Saddam was the only one left who we had a legal right to go after. And, as I previously stated, it was Saddam's choice to go to war. If he had complied with the UN resolutions, there would have been no war.

One thing is for sure, Saddam Hussein and his sons will never kill anyone ever again. And that is a good thing.

I'm glad you don't seem to think the members of the Bush administration are evil monsters. But, when you state that your opinion is they knew it was a "ruse," this is what you are implying.

Red Phillips | 6.15.11 @ 4:15PM

Nick, even if we knew with absolute certainty that Saddam had WNDs, it would not have justified a preventative war based on the fear that he MIGHT use them. I am a Christian. I believe in Christian Just War doctrine, and Just War doctrine does not allow for preventative war. We know for certain Russia has WMDs? Should we attack them preventatively, or do we only attack countries that are easy pickings?

You can not start a war and kill people just to "be on the safe side," and that so many people who consider themselves conservatives (and presumably many of these are Christians) believe such a thing indicates a serious problem with our moral understanding.

And even if Saddam did have WNDs, how was this "gambling with the lives of all Americans?" How was he going to get them over here? Was he going to shoot us with his ICBMs? Send them over using his submarines, battleships or carrier group? Bomb us with his transatlantic capable airforce? Just curious.

Nick| 6.16.11 @ 12:18AM

Mr. Phillips,

You repeatedly get the premise wrong.

What justified our removal of Saddam was the fact that he was violating the cease-fire agreement. I will state it again boldly, as you seem to refuse to acknowledge it, it was Saddam's war of choice. If he had complied with all the UN resolutions, President Bush would've had no legal basis to invade.

Saddam provided the rope to hang himself. Operation Iraqi Freedom was just a continuation of Operation Desert Storm. OIF was not a preventive war.

Russia made no such cease-fire agreement, like Saddam, so, your comparison is apples to oranges. An apt analogy would be: Didn't the U.K., France, and the U.S. have the right, by treaty, to force Hitler out of the Rhineland when he unlawfully re-entered it, in 1936?

"How was he going to get them over here?"
After the attacks of September 11th, how can you seriously ask such a question?

Usama bin Laden showed that a madman who commanded a small group of fanatics could, with a minuscule budget and not very much technical expertise, attack the worlds most powerful country and kill 3,000 of our citizens.

After the attacks, President Bush was faced with this question: What could a madman with the power of a nation-state behind him, with a state intelligence apparatus, with a state treasury to fund him, and who had a deep hatred for our country; what damage could a person like Saddam do to our nation if he put his mind to it?

If you had been president, Mr. Phillips, I guess your answer would have been, "Nothing." Am I correct?

Fortunately for all of us, President Bush used every Constitutional weapon he had at his disposal to keep another September 11th from happening again. And, he was successful.

Red Phillips | 6.16.11 @ 2:28PM

Nick, I did not support the First Gulf War without which there would have been no cease-fire. I do not support our involvement in the UN. So how could I support using US troops to enforce UN resolutions regarding the cease-fire? Yes, Saddam could have cooperated more, but it was not our place to enforce globalist resolutions from a globalist organization. Let the UN, absent the US, muster a global police force and enforce their own damn resolutions.

If I were Emperor, I would have pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia that were enforcing the no-fly zone and been done with the matter. Our permanent troop presence in Saudi Arabia was one of the chief things that irked Osama bin Laden.

You hit on a chief point by accident. We were attacked by stateless terrorists and thought the best response was to bomb and invade nation states. This makes no sense. The best way to prevent terrorism on our shores is immigration restriction, intel and law enforcement, not a big military to bomb far off nation states. The whole idea is absurd.

Nick| 6.17.11 @ 2:50AM

Mr. Phillips,

Now you are arguing policy. Not the justification or morality of OIF.

Not supporting ODS and OIF, and our membership in the UN, is completely different than claiming President G.W. Bush acted immorally and wasn't justified in making Saddam comply. Or, implying he acted unconstitutionally when, after six months of warning of the consequences of noncompliance, he finally did invade.

Believing that an act is a bad idea, and, stating that it is illegal and immoral are two different things, entirely. In your latest response, you seem to be walking back the illegal and immoral points.

Again, I didn't support ODS (and not because I spent 6 months in the Saudi and Iraqi deserts.)
But, I never thought President G.H.W. Bush acted illegally. He had Congressional authorization and, by treaty, UN authorization to lead a coalition to kick Saddam's forces out of Kuwait.

After September 11th, 2001, I think President G.W. Bush was correct to use the UN resolutions as cudgel to force Saddam to comply (so we could know for sure that he had destroyed his WMDs.) Or, if Saddam wouldn't comply (most likely) to use the cudgel to remove him from power.

It might not have been the best or most conservative way to deal with the problem of Saddam, but it got the job done. Much in the same way that the tax code was used to put Al Capone in prison.

I would argue that our troop presence was the obstacle to Usama's plan to take Saudi Arabia over. He thought he could get us to leave, like we did in Somalia, if he hurt us bad enough. He lost that bet.

When stateless terrorists, who attack us, are protected by nation states, the only solution is to invade the nation states that are protecting them. The Founders leaned this lesson the hard way.

President Adams made a treaty with, and paid tribute to, the Sultans who protected the Barbary Pirates. President Jefferson finally reversed this policy (after years of treaty violations, see the parallels with OIF?) and invaded the Barbary states. The Barbary wars lasted for years, but finally our shipping was safe in the Mediterranean Sea. Congress never declared war during 15 years of fighting, either.

If Americans are going to trade with the nations of the world and have their rights protected, the United States must project our power globally to ensure our rights are not violated.

p.s. You didn't answer my question about kicking Hitler out of the Rhineland in '36. Would we have been justified?

p.p.s. How about this: Was President Coolidge justified when he sent U.S. warships into China to protect American merchants and missionaries, in the 1920's?

Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.16.11 @ 3:06AM

No, you don't believe in the Just War Doctrine, you believe in the Paul-Larison bullshit "No wars, capitulation, and cocksucking" doctrine. You're an anti-American pacifist. And I'm saying this as a person who has opposed the Iraqi war for a long time and continues to oppose it.

Red Phillips | 6.16.11 @ 2:13PM

ZM, if my ideas are so deficient then why are you the first one (here and below) to resort to name-calling? If your ideas are so powerful and mine so weak, then why not simply try to out reason me? Your resort to jail house imagery proves that this is not about logic and reason for you. You are an interventionist for visceral reasons, and in your mind anyone who isn't must be some sort of effeminate wimp. Was Madison, who didn’t want the Constitution to authorize a standing army, a wimp?

BTW, I was in the military. I didn't realize they let pacifists in. As a doctor, I had to deal with the sequelae of war and frequent deployments. I’ve dealt with the guy who just got a Dear John letter from his wife because of frequent deployments. I’ve dealt with people with head injuries. I’ve dealt with people with PTSD. I’ve dealt with people who turned to alcohol to cope. So perhaps you should find someone else to lecture to. War is HELL and not something to be cavalierly entered into to make you feel more like a man.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.14.11 @ 8:04AM

Just a thought:
How did our 1930s isolationism work out for us?

We WILL pay the price for stability in the world...
or we will pay the much larger price for an unstable world.
I sorta' like the idea of a hundred thousand troops next door to Iran. In the final analysis, regime change is the only answer.
In the mean time, fence them in. I would not want THIS president to be in charge of that.

JohnC| 6.14.11 @ 9:14AM

Yes, isolationism brought us World War II.

The problem with both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has been that both Bush and Obama handcuffed our troops and had too few troops. Also Iran and Pakistan were both safe havens -- we never fought to win with overwhelming force. If we did both wars would have been over in 6 mos.

Now all the presidential wannabes, with their fingers in the wind, are for withdrawing with our tail between our legs.

Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea pursue nukes with impunity, a nuclear Pakistan is dicey, and we are paying and enabling communist China with our trade wealth to modernize and expand their growing and ominous ICBM arsenal.

We have an undersized military and an incoherent foreign policy that is going to end up in a major war, except this time it may be nuclear. For all it takes is for good men to do nothing for evil to triumph.

Jack in Wi.| 6.14.11 @ 5:34PM

What brought us WW2 was us getting into WW1. Our involvement in the world the last 100 years has done us and the world do good. It is time to let the world run itself and we should take of our own problems. The world got along without us before and it will again. Everything comes to an end and the end of the American Empire is here. It is time to salvage what we can and not end up like Rome or Greece.

cfountain72 | 6.15.11 @ 11:02AM

"The problem with both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has been that both Bush and Obama handcuffed our troops and had too few troops."
Handcuffed our troops? Could you be more specific. Are you arguing that we should have been able to kill more innocent civilians? Or is there something more you had in mind?

"Withdrawing with our tail between our legs." So when you're doing something stupid and counterproductive, just keep doing it to try to save face? It's like signing a $50 million QB who sucks, but the GM keeps starting him anyway because he does want to look like he failed.

"Iran pursue[s] nukes with impunity" Do you have any proof of that? The NIE's don't support that presumption. The IAEA doesn't support this notion. I'm curious how you know this?

"We have an undersized military" What are you talking about? We spend almost as much on our military as the rest of the world combined! If our goal is to garrison the planet, you're right. If our goal is to actually defend the US, it sounds like you might be a military contractor.

"For all it takes is for good men to do nothing for evil to triumph." Maybe you've also heard the other one about the road to hell and good intentions? Good people can and do do things that cause issues later on, as our actions in the 1980's Afghanistan show. At the time it seemed like a monumental issue, but with the benefit of hindsight, how much difference would it have made if we had not assisted the mujahadeen and let them fight it out alone with the USSR? Based on our experience in the region, they would have probably fought with Soviets until they collapsed in the late 1980's anyway.

Peace be with you.

C Bowen| 6.14.11 @ 10:13AM

Ken;

Weren't you the guy who was afraid of Saddam?

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.14.11 @ 11:33AM

CBowen,
yep, that's me. I had to negotiate a very large contract with the coldest lunatic I had ever met across a table, and his sons were even worse.

Saddam was a catastrophe yearning to happen.

Red Phillips | 6.14.11 @ 8:58PM

Ken, we have been over this before. The US was not isolationist before WWII. Our intervention in WWI was a cause of WWII. Without the US intervening in WWI and swinging the balance there would have likely been a stalemate and a more just peace. Our decisive intervention led to the unjust Treaty of Versailles which led to the rise of Hitler and WWII.

No US intervention in WWI, no Treaty of Versailles, no Hitler, no WWII. This is a straightforward alternative history and shouldn't be hard for you to understand.

Also, FDR deliberately antagonized the Japanese in an attempt to drag us into the war.

How is this isolationist? You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.15.11 @ 3:20AM

Wrong. America's intervention in WW1 (when the US and Japan fought on the same side against Germany) had nothing to do with WW2. It was caused by German and Japanese imperialism.

Had the US not joined WW1, there would've been no stalemate - there would've been a German victory instead. By early 1918, France was already bankrupt, its demographic reserves were almost depleted, its ally Russia had withdrawn from the war, and the Germans were preparing a new offensive on the Western Front. There would've been no stalemate - there would've been a German victory (I guess the Frenchies would've surrendered quickly, as they always do), which would be followed by a treaty that would be humiliating for France (call it the Berlin treaty) and would include a requirement of huge reparations as well as a war guilt clause, which would've led to French revanchism and the emergence of a revanchist French leader (a French Hitler), who would've been itching for a war and for revenge on Germany.

One of the reasons WW1 broke out was because the French were itching for a war and for revenge on Germany for their defeat of 1871, when Germany imposed on them a HUGELY HUMILIATING treaty that blamed the war on France (technically, France did declare war on Prussia after the Ems depeche) and ordered it to pay a staggering 5 bn FRF in gold of "reparations".

Your claim that FDR deliberately antagonized the Japanese is a blatant lie, although a popular one, thanks to the anti-American propaganda that schools imbibe students with. Yet another reason why schools should be privatized and the taxes that pay for them should be abolished.

You're a traitor. You're clearly a member of the Blame America First crowd, just like your idol, Ron Paul.

Red Phillips | 6.15.11 @ 8:41AM

ZM, clearly since it is alternate history no one can say for sure whether WWI would have ended in stalemate or German victory, but either way no treaty of Versailles. But what interest did the US have in who won an insane European war? We should have stayed out of it.

And yes FDR did intentionally antagonize the Japanese you historical illiterate. Ever heard of the McCollum Memo? Like Ken, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

In fact, some neoconservatives have commended FDR for this because it allowed him to drag a reluctant nation to war.

And wanting to keep MY country out of war makes me a traitor? Wanting MY country's military to only fight for America, not the world, makes me a traitor? ZM, you are the traitor because you want to sacrifice the interests of the US to some greater global community we are supposedly responsible for. Not only are you clueless about history, you also have no idea what real patriotism is about. Real patriotism is not about being able to brag about your countries military might and world prominence. It is loving YOUR country because it is YOURS.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.16.11 @ 3:14AM

Garbage.

Regarding WW1, no one can say for sure what would've been the result, but it is highly likely, based on FACTS, including real history, what would've been the result if the US had not intervened: an overwhelming German victory. By early 1918, France's demographic reserves were completely depleted, it had almost no gold, and was in debt to the US to the tune of 35 FRF (in 1918's money). On the Eastern Front, Russia had withdrawn from the war, allowing Germany to send all of its troops to the Western Front and start a new offensive. The previous time the French fought a war against Germany on their own, they were RESOUNDINGLY defeated and surrendered (as they always do).

Without the US, there would've been no stalemate, there would've been another German victory, which would be followed by another treaty that would be humiliating for France, which would've led to French revanchism and possibly a French Hitler.

No, Wilson didn't make a mistake by joining WW1. He made a mistake by allowing France to make the Versailles Treaty a severe "punishment" for Germany.

As for the McCollum Memo - I've read it long ago. It still proves nothing. McCollum recommended these actions in response to JAPANESE AGGRESSION against Asian countries. Still, those steps did not constitute a casus belli. Your claim that the US provoked Japan is as treasonous as it is false.

And yes, you ARE a despicable traitor. You do not want to advance America's interests, you want to capitulate to America's enemies and hand over the entire world to them. You blame everything bad on the US. You're no different from other pseudoconservative Blame America First liberals like Barney Frank, RP, and Dennis Kucinich. Every decent American despises you, and if you don't know that, you're mentally deficient.

Red Phillips | 6.16.11 @ 7:57AM

ZM, you flunk political nomenclature 101. Barney Frank and Dennis Kucinich are pseudoconservatives? In order to be pseudo something you have to first claim to be that thing. When have Frank and Kucinich ever claimed to be conservatives. Ron Paul's politics are light years from Kucinich and Frank and YOU KNOW IT. And if you don't know it then you are a clueless dolt. The effort to smear Ron Paul through guilt by association with Kucinich is simple-minded and/or intellectually dishonest. So which are you, stupid or an intentional deceiver?

So we were supposed to respond to Japanese aggression to Asian countries? Thanks for proving my point. You want the US military to police the world, not protect the US. You also imply you think the US should have intervened in WWI to save the French. Case closed. I want the US military to only protect America, but I'm the traitor? You want the US military to police the globe and you're what then - Super Patriot? No ZM, I am the patriot because I want MY country's military to protect MY country. I want the members of MY county's military (I used to be one) to only fight and die for MY (their) country. You want to send your fellow citizens (I presume) to fight for the interests of other countries. You are not a patriot ZM. You are a globalist.

Patriotism has the same root as paternity. It indicates love of one's own. One loves one's country for the same reason one loves one's family. Because it is yours, not because it can beat up other countries. Wanting to keep MY country out of OTHER COUNTRIES' wars is an expression of patriotism. Thinking that makes me a "traitor" means you have a seriously messed up understanding of what patriotism is all about.

cfountain72 | 6.15.11 @ 9:55AM

Wow Ken. So this is what happens when ignorance and hubris collide? So, what exactly would you have had us do differently in the 1930's? Anyone who studies the subject understands that the grueling reparations on the German people from WWI set the stage for Hitler's rise to power and WWII. That's one of the reasons why we used the Marshall Plan instead of more reparations after WWII.

Let's look around, and see what hyper-interventionism has wrought. Three wars and counting. Literally trillions of dollars wasted and tens of thousands of people killed...for what purpose again? And you sit there and want us to engage in even more wars, to spend more money and kill more people. Here's a hint, war is a sign of failure, not of success.

Peace be with you.

Southern_Comment| 6.14.11 @ 8:06AM

We can debate bringing them home, personally I'm for it . . . get our troops out of there and bring them home. One thing I'd like to hear or read that I've not heard or read . . . Why is Obama not making a timetable to bring them home? I've not heard one reason for this, and would have expected it considering it was one of the points of his campaign. . . the wars. What a complete failure, but we've seen that with failure to close Gitmo (what a pipe dream promise that is), with getting us into more conflicts, that the country doesn't agree with (who cares about Libya let them handle it, it's their country and not our place or the UN's to bugger into the country's business) . I've grown tired and weary of these useless debates that have no ending and from the Dems we are given no reason for their actions in the first place. Isn't that one of the most frustrating things about that party of liars thieves and sexual predators, that it's like talking to a teenager. "Why'd you do it?" and the response "I don't know". Why are you making decisions that nobody agrees with, that are only harmful for the country? No more allowing them to do this with some vague expectation in the background for the reason why. We need to demand the details not the inane bs we've gotten from them all this time that only accomplishes putting us on defense of a debate without really understanding why and questioning that.

Louis Jenkins| 6.14.11 @ 8:15AM

It is time to bring the troops home. Our nation is over burden with the costs of maintaining such a high involvement. I find it puzzling why the commander n chief campaigned on bringing them home, but turned about quickly. America cannot be policeman to the entire world, and unfortunately we're the only ones doing it. NATO has said "enough all ready" and they've been drawing down their forces until it is nil. Look at Norway and its airforce in Lybia. Three wars and a fourth one now in Yemini? Get real Obama, fight one war at a time, do it well, or don't fight at all.

JimP| 6.14.11 @ 8:30AM

The grumbling by people like Bill Kristol is annoying. How many among this group have family serving in the military? I'm sure it's near zero if not absolute zero. They seem willing to endlessly sacrifice other people's children and family but none of their own. How long must we spend in efforts like Afghanistan where we've never pursued truly effective policies/approaches (the effective policies would be very "extreme") before we come home? It's a reasonable question. President Bush and the military bungled Iraq by not having a large enough force and not following a winning longterm strategy from the outset. Kicking Sadam out of power was the easy part. Ineffective plans to win or achieve our military political goals quickly in Iraq and Afghanistan just gave Iran, Syria and other bad actors more ability to drag out the fighting which dimished our ability to take effective actions elsewhere and in other ways as needed. We ended up in de facto stalemates in Iraq and Afghanistan for essentially a decade. As soon as we are out of Iraq, Iran and likely Syria, will restart the insurgencies there. The same goes for Afghanistan, which has been much less successful than Iraq. After ten years of less than optimal success, rational people start asking if we shouldn't leave. Only mentally unbalanced extremists think we should press on without seriously questioning whether or not to find a better way, including ending our effort in Afghanistan.

Fred| 6.14.11 @ 10:58AM

No offense, but the "chicken-hawk" argument is a particularly stupid form of ad hominem. Only people with family members in a war can have any say about whether or not we go in? I suppose only those with family members who were arrested or clubbed in anti-war demonstrations have a right to oppose war. Gee, isn't this silly game fun? The question is, and is only, is the war in our interest, and that question is only relevant before we go in. Once we're in, the only relevant question is do we withdraw and give a great propaganda victory to our enemies, discourage our allies, and encourage future attacks? Or do we fight on to something we can legitimately call victory?

Arizona Bob| 6.14.11 @ 11:19AM

Correct, particularly stupid. And fyi, several of the leading neos who have been out front on justifying the war in the name of liberty and democracy have, in fact,family members in the services. This said, it is perfectly true the debate is badly skewered by our inability to factor in the nuances as between our immediate interests and our long term ones, which certainly include a liberalization of regimes around the world but which, given human nature, cannot be expected to happen soon.

JimP| 6.14.11 @ 3:31PM

Please name the neos with family in the war. I know about McCain so don't bother with him. Nevertheless, my point is valid.

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 11:42AM

If you want to get into a poker game where the out come is always uncertain you have to put some money on the table. The ante in war is always your own or your family's lives. Those in the game do have a right to tell you to shut up if you have no money on the table.

Fred| 6.14.11 @ 12:33PM

Every American has "money on the table" when it comes to a war to defend American interests, not just those with family in the war, since the outcome will affect every American. You've followed up a silly assertion with a silly analogy.

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 2:16PM

No kidding! You know the old saying: If you get into a poker game, look around the table, if you don't see a sucker it is you. And only one can win. And the USA can't win these wars of attrition.

China just launched an aircraft carrier.

In 10 years we will have to begin rebuilding our own fleet and we aren't going to be able to do it with our energy policy. Where are we going to get the steel to do it? From China? We already sell them most of our scrap metal! We have no steel mills any more and we wouldn't be able to use coal in them if we had them because it expels dirty carbon.

This is the "infrastructure" we need to maintain if we are going to keep fighting wars in all parts of the globe for all kinds of reasons and it's going to cost lots more money and lives then than it does now if we don't start investing our monies here at home first.

So yes, we do have a right to tell these people to shut up, because their policies over the last decades have put us voluntarily into wars of attrition that will bankrupt us before we can settle our own problems and secure our future. Because if we don't we will end up like Russia did. Overextended and with a citizenry that is tired of the whole damn thing.

It is a good analogy. It's time to fold, take out losses and go home and start over.

Fred| 6.14.11 @ 3:35PM

Bob, your argument (if you want to call it that) above is mostly a string of non-sequitors. Your point about the cost of the war is the only relevant point. As for your "chicken-hawk" argument (remember, the one I initially responded to and the one you applied your analogy to), well, it is obviously very passionately felt. It is, however, very poorly thought out.

Here’s the logic of this particular case: Any given military conflict either is or is not in America’s national interest (Of course, it can be in our short but not long term interest or vice versa as Arizona Bob pointed out).

Reasonable people can disagree, on any number of bases, about whether a particular conflict is or is not in America’s interest. However, whether any individual has a family member, or is him or herself, deployed in the conflict has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the conflict is in America’s interest. Nor does it, of itself, confer on anyone any particular insight into whether or not the conflict is in America’s interest.

Now, it is possible that a deployed person can see things over there that do give him or her insight into the conflict that is unavailable to someone back home, but if that’s what you are arguing, you are obligated to point to the particular facts available to the deployed person, not simply assert that just because the person is there he or she (or his or her family) has some special right to tell anyone else to “shut up” about the conflict. To put it in a way that might clarify how silly your argument is, you are essentially saying, “I have a family member in the war, ergo I know more about America’s national interest than you do.” Being, or having a family member, deployed in a war certainly entitles one to respect and gratitude. It does not entitle one to fallacious arguments, however passionately felt.

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 10:50PM

We are not talking about "every american" here, nor is the article. And I am certain that you know that.

We are talking about members of the ruling class who have something to gain from this foreign policy which has changed very little since Lyndon Johnson told the electorate it could have both "guns and butter" during the Vietnam Conflict. The people who stand to gain from this in our leadership can be conservatives, neocons and liberals too. You can probably name as many as I can. And if they have something to gain; financial, ideologically, or other and put our military into harms way doing so while protecting their own family from those risks then they are properly brought to task for it.

And it follows that it is not a non-sequitor to illustrate the damages this foreign policy has done to our nation when arguing against it.

Instead of trying to divert attention from this national dispute you would do better to by trying to tell the people here why it is better to continue this "guns and butter" policy which a great many of the posters here disagree with.

JimP| 6.14.11 @ 3:29PM

Funny, I wasn't even thinking about the chicken hawk term. It's just a fact though and when it is your family's skin in the game it changes your eagerness to continue with bad policies. I disagree with your strawman argument about once were in it is either one of the other. I also find it interesting that you reacted so strongly to my comment. I'm pleased I hit a nerve.

Fred| 6.14.11 @ 3:54PM

Jim, Read my 3:35 reply to Bob K RE: the chicken hawk argument. My argument about bugging out is hardly a strawman. I believe the fallacy you are mistaking it for is the false dichotomy. It is a dichotomy; it is not, however, false. According to Osama Bin Laden himself, a direct line can be traced from our abandonment of Viet Nam, to our abandonment of Beirut, to our abandonment of Somalia, to 9/11. Do you honestly believe that abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan would give no encouragement to Jihadis (We drove the crusading infidels out of two countries, Allahu Akbar!)? Arguably, Bin Ladenism has declined in popularity all over the Middle East not just because it has resulted in more Muslim than "infidel" deaths but also because it simply has not worked. It didn't drive us out of Iraq or Afghanistan. How naive do you have to be to believe that it wouldn't rise in popularity (and recruiting power) if it was suddenly seen as successful? In addition, do you honestly believe that if we leave Afghanistan before the Afghans are able to prevent the Taliban from taking back the country the Taliban will refrain from doing so? And do you really believe that if they do, we will not have to go back in and take them out again? Why not just finish the job this time?

JimP| 6.14.11 @ 4:53PM

Wow. That's quite a long rambling argument against things I never suggested doing. You are so off point that I am not going to bother addressing your response. There are so many false assertions it would take page upon page to even begin to correct what you have projected onto my comments. Reread my initial comment, but put your emotional reaction about being called a chickenhawk aside if possible: and again, the term wasn't in my mind at all. It's just a well known fact that neo-cons as a group are not fighting the wars they so eagerly advocate. All I am talking about is rethinking after 10 years their stated desire to continue with unsuccessful policies forever apparently if need be in Afghanistan. There's nothing unreasonable about what I said and I did not advocate pulling out per se, only considering doing it among other options. And, as I said before, that is reasonable considering the totality of the cicrumstances. By your reaction you have actually validated my argument. When people advocate rethinking what we are doing in Afghanistan or Iraq and consider that we may need to change strategies in the GWOT, guys like you go off half cocked and begin misrepresenting our comments as wanting to quit or surrender or commit suicide by terrorist etc. It is the neo-cons who are the extremists and who are unbalanced, IMO.

Sorry Fred, but we disagree and I will continue to disagree with you until my agrument prevails with the populace as a whole. We need to pick our fights carefully, not get overextended, not get involved in side shows-like Libya- when we are at a very low point, and if after 10 years victory is not clearly in sight and right around the corner, we need rethink everything we have been doing.

Carol| 6.15.11 @ 1:16PM

It's not an ad hominem argument. That's not what an ad hominem argument is.

We know that Americans will line up to defend their country when it is under attack. They'll lie about their age and health in order to do so. If America were in real peril it would be perfectly reasonable to expect these men to line up at the recruiting office to defend their country. They'd be scorned by their neighbors for not doing so. But they're not lining up at the recruiting office....

Furthermore there is no war they oppose. None whatsoever. Give me an example of a war or even a rumor of war that neocons have ever opposed...? See what I mean....?

You could suggest going to war against New Zealand and they'd be all for it -- claiming you were a traitor to the flag and America the Beautiful if you didn't see the pressing need.

WJ| 6.14.11 @ 8:32AM

Our days of being the word's cop are over, whether we like it or not. "World stability" and other such terms will be meaningless when we can't keep the lights on at home.

We are facing a fiscal apocalypse and the keyboard heroes want to keep fighting pointless wars.

JimH| 6.14.11 @ 8:40AM

Do not confuse non-interventionist policies with not maintaining a strong defense. Right now because, because of our interventionist policy we have the military stretched all over the globe and overcommitted. We have a homeland defense that is the weakest it has been in years. We are short of spare parts and some types of weapons and ammunition. We are cutting back on some weapons and programs in order to have enough money to try and stay operational in these far flung locales. Our brave and willing forces are worn down because they are constantly being rotated to these nasty little wars. The financial expense of these commitments is a major contributor to the deficit. As has been said before, we should be the friends of Liberty everywhere and guaranteers of only our own.

Nancy in NC| 6.14.11 @ 9:16AM

Some of the finest Americans are serving in the military, and we are sacrificing our future. I know guys and gals that have spent a good portion of the adult life in some god-forsaken country trying to win an unwinnable war. If Afghanistan wants freedom, they need to do it the old fashioned way...earn it.

No one wants to state the obvious...war pays. The military industrial complex wants us to stay in these wars as they enrich themselves and the nation gets poorer...we lose the finest and most patriotic Americans.

I don't think Ron Paul is electable, however most of his ideas are. The individual that can most eloquently formulate those ideas has an excellent chance of beating Obama...if the GOP will get behind that individual completely. Other than Newt and Romney, I could easily cast my vote for any of those in NH last night.

William R| 6.14.11 @ 9:19AM

Exit NeoCons Stage Left

http://americasfuture.org/doub.....tage-left/

Thomas| 6.14.11 @ 9:27AM

There is a time and a place for everything. And the time for active U.S. involvement in Afghanistan has passed. Afghanistan offers no strategic interest for the U.S. There is only one reason for any American troop presence in Afghanistan and that is to put pressure on Iran along a second front. The conditions in country and the logistic nightmare of supporting troops there far outweigh any small advantage having troops there might give the U.S. We would be better served to reduce the number of troops to a few advisers and spec ops teams and leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis.

Iraq is a different story. As Iran is an avowed enemy of the U.S. and seems bent on stirring up all the trouble it can in the Middle East, a significant U.S. troop presence is very desirable in Iraq. Bases for U.S. troops are operational there and none of the logistical problems that exist in Afghanistan exist in Iraq. Also, as long as the U.S. does not meddle too much in Iraqi political affairs, the majority of the rank and file citizens seems to approve of the stability our presence fosters. A continuing U.S. military presence in Iraq is a very desirable thing, at the present time.

Troop reductions are also possible in other locations, particularly Europe. And as the global threats change, U.S,military deployment needs to change with it.

cfountain72 | 6.15.11 @ 10:26AM

"Also, as long as the U.S. does not meddle too much in Iraqi political affairs, the majority of the rank and file citizens seems to approve of the stability our presence fosters. A continuing U.S. military presence in Iraq is a very desirable thing, at the present time."

"Stability our presence fosters?" You do understand that before we invaded Iraq, there were no IED's, suicide bombers, Al qaeda members, churches being burned, or terrorist attacks in Iraq. You also understand that we agreed in writing to leave at the end of this year? What is our word actually worth? Also, the quantity of 'trouble Iran has stirred' up is debatable, but in any case, how is that our concern? Being objective, it appears that we have certain stirred up far more trouble that any other nation in that region.

Peace be with you.

clawhammer jake| 6.14.11 @ 9:42AM

If we're going to cut programs for children who need milk in the morning, if we're going to cut programs for seniors who need a sandwich at lunch, if we're going to cut veterans benefits, then, for God's sake, why can't we raise taxes on the richest 1% of Americans?

Vern Crisler | 6.14.11 @ 10:05AM

Aha, you've used reductio ad absurdum to show how silly the argument is. Good point. Conservatives should beware of falling for such either/or thinking when it comes to national security issues. Playing the children card is a tried and true practice of demagogues and Democrats, but I repeat myself.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.14.11 @ 9:46AM

I live in Jones' district he is NO conservative and is not pro-military. In fact, he’s a RINO and from the quote Antle attributed to him he sounds a lot more like Charlie Rangel or Dennis Kucinich than what some would call proto-neocon Ronald Reagan.

Does that mean I support Obama’s Clintonesque wars in Libya or Yemen – NO! But I don’t support Obama’s or Jones’ willingness to make a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan to share power with them (i.e., turn the country back over to them). Talk about a waste of blood and treasure. Appeasement of Islamic jihadist is never in America’s interest as illustrated by the failed Clinton pro-Muslim foreign policy that had dead American sniper’s bodies violated in the streets of Mogadishu, the USAF defending the human traffickers of the KLA and caused 9/11 and our current predicament.

William R| 6.14.11 @ 11:51AM

Walter Jones has a 86+ lifetime voting record from the ACU. Of course he's a conservative. But to a NeoCon hack like you Tomlinson anyone that doesn't support endless war in the Middle East is a rino. You're pathetic.

Jack in Wi.| 6.14.11 @ 5:42PM

Amen William: Walter Jones termed the phrase Freedom Fries'. He got smart and saw that these wars were nonsense and went over to the right side. We need a lot more patriots like him. We don't need these Likudniks and their endless wars for Israel. Israel is not worth one drop of American blood or one American dollar.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.15.11 @ 3:23AM

John McCain also has an 86% lifetime rating (or thereabouts) from the lobbyist-run ACU. Does that mean that McCain is a conservative? Of course not.

ConantheContrarian| 6.14.11 @ 9:56AM

I hold to the (John) Derbyshire Doctrine: Rubble, and out. Afghanistan, the refuge of the Taliban and Al-Qaida, should have been ruthlessly punished and turned to rubble. As many Taliban killed as possible and their village turned to dust. Then withdraw and let the factions fight it out. When will westerners learn that we cannot civilize Muslims. And why, oh why, were we ever in Iraq? To save Kuwait? Who cares about Kuwait? Let it be annexed by Iraq. The more I think of these things, the more I despise the Bushes and their war policies.

Vern Crisler | 6.14.11 @ 10:07AM

Oil, Conan, oil. Oil is a national security matter in this day and age.

ConantheContrarian| 6.14.11 @ 12:46PM

I understand oil. Iraq would have controlled Kuwait's oil, and Iraq would have sold it to us, just like Kuwait did; and if not, we could have used a proxy. How much oil did we get for free for our efforts in 1991?

Devil Dog| 6.14.11 @ 2:58PM

A lot from Saudi Arabia.

Every drop of fuel our tanks and my Humvee burned for starters.

Drunken Sailor| 6.14.11 @ 4:06PM

Shhhh Devil Dog. You'll confuse him with reality.

Semper Fi

JimH| 6.14.11 @ 1:15PM

Jerry Pournelle, in a case of two very sharp minds thinking alike, has also expressed a similar view, as the French say ‘pour encourager les autres’.

hondr| 6.14.11 @ 10:20AM

Let Kristol go over and fight in Afghanistan and Libya, if he's so anxious to have these wars. The rest of us have to pay for all this waste, in blood and treasure.

Sheila| 6.14.11 @ 10:30AM

All in all, a surprisingly good comment thread. I am pleased to number myself among the contrarians, who believe in a strong national defense, minimal foreign entanglements, and zero nation building. Funny how I remember many of the Founders as being contrarians as well; Bill Kristol a "conservative" American? Not so much.

Occam's Tool| 6.14.11 @ 10:43AM

The problem, Sheila, is that they have wanted to kill us since the early 600s. Tours had nothing to do with Israel, for example; neither did Vienna.

RCV| 6.14.11 @ 11:14AM

Sheila is an anti-semite, Occam, so there is no point in trying to reason with her.

Sheila| 6.14.11 @ 12:26PM

RCV, you really ought to try free speech and reasoned thought some time. I am impervious to "shaming" language; fling epithets all you wish. There are a few here at TAS who are starting to open their eyes - fearful of the truth, but unable to utterly ignore it. My comments may resonate with those few, which is my purpose for posting. I neither seek your approval nor fear your opprobrium. What frightens you is that there are more and more like me - and you fear that which you cannot control.

Hank| 6.14.11 @ 8:00PM

That's right, Sheila has no shame. She's a blatant White Nationalist and proud of it, right Sheila?
You have all the free speech you want, but so do others in order to protest your racism.
Got it, toots?

RCV| 6.15.11 @ 11:10AM

Sheila, you do need calling out. Your White Nationalist and anti-semitic agenda is sickening. You need to be separated from responsible conservatives like Occam, whose positions rest on principles, not on prejudice.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 6.14.11 @ 1:32PM

I don't bother with silly posting two consecutive comments on this thread that inconceivably were lacking in the inevitable pathetic and despicable unintelligence and dishonesty I continually display on the third post resorting to displaying in reality what a pathetic despicable unintelligent dishonest asswipe I truly am matters.

RCV| 6.15.11 @ 11:11AM

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.....

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 2:28PM

It used to be that the first sign of who was losing an argument was who called the other person a "fascist" first. Now it seems that calling your opponent an "anti-semite" has also joined that category.

RCV| 6.15.11 @ 11:11AM

Sometimes the label fits. And in Sheila's case, it indisputably does so.

Louis Tully| 6.14.11 @ 10:35AM

We're broke. Neo-con foreign policy died when our economy went down the drain.

to the Weekly Standard crowd: sorry guys, its over. There is bi-partisan concensus against your nation building exercises.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.14.11 @ 10:44AM

"Few conservatives want to cut the sinews of our national military muscle: vital weapons systems, replacement of equipment that frequently dates back to the Reagan administration, pay for troops. "Maintaining a strong national defense is the most basic of the federal government's responsibilities," says former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. "However, building schools, roads, and hospitals in other countries are not among those basic obligations."

Exactly! On this one, Gary Johnson got it right, and even Jim Antle got it right! The SOLE mission of the Department of Defense is to defend this country from any external enemies (be they terrorists or peer competitors like China). It is NOT to build hospitals, roads, or schools in foreign countries (or the US itself). The DOD needs to once again become a single-issue, MISSION-ORIENTED agency.

Drunken Sailor| 6.14.11 @ 4:10PM

And we need to learn to not play nice when going to war. Blast them to rubble, burn and salt the fields. When they fear your reprisal, then and only then will they not antogonize you.

Cowlesy| 6.14.11 @ 11:15AM

Enjoyed this article. I'd say Jim Antle's columns and posts are the number one driver of my hits on the American Spectator, a site I am enjoying more and more by the day.

Al Adab| 6.14.11 @ 11:48AM

Iraq is an exercise in nation building and should end. Afghanistan is active combat. An infusion of about 100 thousand troops could settle the matter in a season, then come home and avoid the nation building aspect of engagement there. Libya is stupid from its inception and Yemen is a short term attack on terrorists. The war is worldwide but different theaters need different strategies.

Old Soldier| 6.14.11 @ 3:02PM

1. We don't have a spare 100k troops.
2. We don't have a supply line to support an extra 100k in Afghanistan.
3. The only way to "settle the matter" is to kill everyone there. Using the nukes Obama promised the Russians we would get rid of would be faster and more cost-effective.

Al Adab| 6.14.11 @ 3:36PM

Thanks Old Soldier:

1. True, the result of The Left neglecting national defense.
2. Logistics is always a major problem, but if mountains and deserts can be overcome... we have the capacity.
3. Agreed, kill them all. That would be the point of a major offensive. What has The Left wrought? Where is the million man army? Where the fighter and bomber wings? Where the 400 ship Navy? Those matters, not social programs and entitlements, are where the national priorities should lie.

davelnaf| 6.14.11 @ 11:58AM

These places in the world where you have small wars usually turn out be to exercises in US altruism. Initially, it looks like we’re doing the right thing, but there’s not enough of this when you’re talking about staying for a long time in one of these places. Yes, it’s worthwhile to make them safe enough for commerce and reasonably safe to travel through. But this doesn’t justify sending US soldiers overseas to fight other peoples’ wars or for the US government to borrow money to pay for them. If you can do a quick surgical removal of the cancer, then by all means do it. But the Eurasian landmass is always going to have its festering cancers, like Afghanistan, that are pretty close to incurable in the long run.

Con Chef (NB) | 6.14.11 @ 12:14PM

I look at it like this:

The days of the OSS Jedburgh teams parachuting into Nazi occupied Europe to arm & train the partisans are over. We should've realized that after we supported the mujajadien in Afghanistan against the Soviets. I think that isolationism, like that expressed by many Paul-ites, is pure folly. The enemies we face don't care if we're in THEIR land or in ours. They adhere to a religion that believes in conquering & conversion by the sword. Period. And while "nation building" hasn't worked out, the idea of pre-emptive war, especially when facing an enemy like stateless terrorists, is the only way to go.

And then we have the distinct possibility of actual conventional war as well. The Chinese are well underway in constructing a blue water navy. They & the Russians thwart us at every turn. And while the Russians are no fans of terrorists (see Chechnya), they also sell weapons to Iran, Venezuela, Syria, & Hamas & Hezbollah. So do the Chinese. The Lord of the Admiralty in England told Parliment yesterday that the British forces in Libya have about 3 months of proper supplies left to fight. But because they scrapped Ark Royal & the Harriers, they are now in dire straits. We can't afford to become like that.

ConantheContrarian| 6.14.11 @ 12:57PM

1. To keep them out of our land, stop immigration from their lands to ours. Stop handing out visas to their students. Secure our borders.
2. These are NOT pre-emptive wars. They are invasions and long term occupations. When are we going to leave?

Con Chef (NB) | 6.14.11 @ 4:02PM

We should leave when the enemy's sanctuaries are destroyed or they themselves are. If we do it half assed, we're inviting another attack.

cfountain72 | 6.15.11 @ 10:40AM

Con Chef, paranoid much?

"The enemies we face don't care if we're in THEIR land or in ours." Actually they do care. Ever actually read bin Laden's writings on why he chose to attack the US? Ironically, it has become our stated policy to not care where our 'enemies' are, since we seem to think we can attack anywhere we 'think' something resembling Al qaeda might be hiding.

Pre-emptive war (besides being immoral) only begets more terrorists, not fewer. For example, read the articles explaining the reason for the attempted Times Square bomb. He specifically mentioned that it was the use of drones and the killing of innocents in Pakistan that drove him to such an extreme measure. This is not unique.

But no, it's easier to put the blinders on and repeat after McCain: "They hate us for our freedoms."
"Fight 'em over there so we don't fight em over here."
"Sharia Law is coming, Sharia Law is coming."

Peace be with you.

Oldefarte| 6.14.11 @ 3:26PM

Great article, Jim! This middle eastern adventure post 9/11 has been typically predictable [as we saw the same movie in the 1960's known as the Viet Nam War]. Although the responnse to 9/11 was noble and warranted, it should have been limited and excessive, instead of this long-drawn out conflict. As Powell warned Bush I that IF YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT [unfortionately his son did not consider same]. This war against terrorism cost Republicans [and America] the 2008 election and is the sole reason as to WHY we're now faced with an nincompoot administration which knows about as much about economics as I do [or care] about Chinese history. We will not WIN this war because we're fighting an invisable/disguised enemy, and we're only losing our valuable young soldiers to injury/death in the process. The only two things of value in the middle are OIL and ISRAEL, and we should domestically drill to increase our supply of the former and contribute foriegn military aid to the latter to assist our foreign friends/ally of the latter. In conclusion, we should get out of the middle east YESTERDAY!!!!!!!

Red Phillips | 6.14.11 @ 9:07PM

"and contribute foreign military aid to the latter to assist our foreign friends/ally of the latter."

You believe in military welfare for rich countries? I thought conservatives opposed welfare. Please turn in your conservative card on the way out the door.

Oldefarte| 6.15.11 @ 2:13PM

You may wish to educate yourself that the definition of WELFARE is RECEIVING GOVERNMENT AID BECAUSE OF POVERTY. Israel is NOT in any way/shape or form a povertous country and is our one [and most probably our ONLY] ally in this world; and to provide them with military AID [defined as HELP] is IMO a worthwhile expense of our government. Most foreign aid is as you say WELFARE [that ends up in the hands/pockets of their tinhorned dictators and their Swiss bank accounts], but that is definately not the case with our military aid to Israel. Oh, and I was a conservative before you ever became a gleem in your old man's eyeballs, okay!!!!!!!!!!

Red Phillips | 6.15.11 @ 3:42PM

Well that's a twist. Our aid to Israel isn't welfare by definition because Israel is a rich country. If such semantic game playing makes you feel better then so be it. But wouldn't the fact that they are rich be even more reason why we don't need to give them aid, which was my point.

BTW, where does the Constitution authorize foreign aid?

Bob Grant| 6.14.11 @ 10:25PM

In addition, our occupier-in-chief has no intentions to carry out these wars to their proper victorious conclusions anyway so lets pull out pronto!!

martin j smith| 6.14.11 @ 4:19PM

Actually the REAL US issue (or issues ) in the middle east are two: Ad hoc terrorist organizations and two, Iran ( that means Syria,Venezuela,North Korea ) But it also means China and Russia. And, I think the US should at least morally support--that means stating support
for FREEDOM MOVEMENTS . But, our involvement in military actions should meet the criterea of our national security and that includes support of allies. Beyond that, we should be militarily prepared to attacks against our soil or our interests.

BackToBasics| 6.14.11 @ 6:33PM

I was never for the Iraq war. Once we get out, Iran will take it by proxy or by force. At least Hussein was a check againt them. I was for Afghanistan since that area was the source of the jihadists who launched the 9-11 attacks and we needed a quick response to 9-11.

BackToBasics| 6.14.11 @ 6:35PM

Lybia, Yemen, Somalia - all lost causes so why are we there? Let's develop our own resources here and stop relying on the Middle East oil.

Al Adab| 6.14.11 @ 7:07PM

Now there's a concept.

BackToBasics| 6.14.11 @ 10:53PM

Yes, it's a profound concept for Democrats to grasp.

wf allen| 6.14.11 @ 10:54PM

So and so is an anti semite?

That's your idea of an argument? Then these wars that you tough guys love are stupider than I ever dreamed.

Con Chef (NB) | 6.15.11 @ 12:58AM

As opposed to the brilliant wars in the Balkans & Libya, right? Put a cork in it, Sonny. Come back when you're all "growed up."

cheap aviator sunglasses | 6.14.11 @ 11:35PM

Great, the Weekly Standard crowd: sorry guys, its over. There is bi-partisan concensus against your nation building exercises.

replica gucci hysteria handbag | 6.15.11 @ 12:55AM

Very detailed info. I am very glad to read this article. Thanks for giving us nice articles.

weddingdresses | 6.15.11 @ 4:27AM

Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing.I will visit this site.

cfountain72 | 6.15.11 @ 11:23AM

Foreign policy is a complicated matter; far too complicated for one nation to try to completely master (check out some Hayek and his thoughts on knowledge). Maybe some people like taxing American citizens to patrol the Persian Gulf to make sure Japan has access to oil. Maybe they think invading Iraq to provide Iran with a closer ally was a good thing. Maybe they like borrowing money from China to give munitions to the UK to bomb Libya. Maybe they like having guys in Virginia piloting drones accidentally killing citizens in Pakistan, leading to bombing attempts in Times Square. But understand that this is what an interventionist foreign policy with an active use of military power has wrought. If being against this obscenely expensive and misguided notion makes me an isolationist, then count me in.
Peace be with you.

jgo| 6.17.11 @ 2:22PM

There's a wide field of variation in the interstices between the categories Adventurism, Interventionism, Non-Interventionism, and Isolationism.

Besides, we could use another 100K full-armed and armored troops along the US borders.

vibrator | 6.23.11 @ 1:01AM

Yeah ,, Hahaha , you are right .，welcome to visit www.sexdollusa.com.cheapest price and best serviser will be your best choise.our Adult toys inculding

Adult toys | 7.4.11 @ 1:22AM

boyfriend wants to have sex with his girlfriend,but ashamed of his small organ...decided to bring girlfriend in dark place,open his ziper and put penis in GF's hand...GF:no thanks ,i don't smoke!

Latest Headlines

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer|6 comments

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|132 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|143 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|63 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|18 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|25 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|41 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|16 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

Good Luck Quin

Aaron Goldstein | 12:13AM

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 5.23.13

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 5.23.13

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.23.13

Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds

Ross Kaminsky | 5.23.13

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 5.23.13

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 5.23.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Another Perspective

Rumble Foreign Policy

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (161) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.14.11 @ 6:26AM

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 9:02AM

Vern Crisler | 6.14.11 @ 9:59AM

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 10:04AM

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 10:32AM

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 10:33AM

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 10:36AM

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 1:47PM

Oldefarte| 6.14.11 @ 3:05PM

Anommynous| 6.14.11 @ 1:17PM

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 1:43PM

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 1:52PM

Anommynous| 6.14.11 @ 2:16PM

Oldefarte| 6.14.11 @ 3:07PM

Drunken Sailor| 6.14.11 @ 3:58PM

Jeamar37| 6.14.11 @ 4:27PM

Carol| 6.15.11 @ 12:40PM

Occam's Tool| 6.14.11 @ 10:39AM

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 11:11AM

RCV| 6.14.11 @ 11:11AM

W| 6.14.11 @ 12:09PM

RCV| 6.15.11 @ 11:06AM

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 11:34AM

RCV| 6.15.11 @ 1:22PM

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 1:38PM

RCV| 6.15.11 @ 3:08PM

Nick| 6.16.11 @ 12:29AM

RCV| 6.16.11 @ 1:34PM

cfountain72 | 6.15.11 @ 9:27AM

Southern_Comment| 6.15.11 @ 5:31PM

Jack in Wi.| 6.14.11 @ 5:20PM

Nick| 6.14.11 @ 11:35PM

Jack in Wi.| 6.15.11 @ 1:07AM

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 1:23AM

Herb Tarlek| 6.15.11 @ 1:33AM

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 1:55AM

Herb Tarlek| 6.15.11 @ 9:26AM

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 10:36AM

RCV| 6.15.11 @ 1:19PM

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 1:42PM

Bob Grant| 6.14.11 @ 10:21PM

Clint| 6.14.11 @ 6:32AM

RCV| 6.14.11 @ 11:13AM

Jack in Wi.| 6.14.11 @ 5:23PM

Clint| 6.14.11 @ 6:07PM

cfountain72 | 6.15.11 @ 9:33AM

Kenny| 6.14.11 @ 6:54AM

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 10:40AM

Carol| 6.15.11 @ 12:53PM

PCP Smoker| 6.14.11 @ 7:16AM

WJ| 6.14.11 @ 8:29AM

Con Chef (NB) | 6.14.11 @ 12:07PM

Quartermaster| 6.14.11 @ 6:37PM

Vern Crisler | 6.14.11 @ 10:00AM

Alan Brooks| 6.14.11 @ 1:50PM

Oldefarte| 6.14.11 @ 3:11PM

Drunken Sailor| 6.14.11 @ 4:02PM

vb| 6.14.11 @ 7:19AM

Bob K.| 6.14.11 @ 10:42AM

Red Phillips | 6.14.11 @ 7:35AM

Jack in Wi.| 6.14.11 @ 5:29PM

Red Phillips | 6.14.11 @ 5:43PM

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 12:16AM

Jack in Wi.| 6.15.11 @ 1:21AM

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 1:34AM

Red Phillips | 6.15.11 @ 12:53PM

Nick| 6.15.11 @ 2:51PM

Red Phillips | 6.15.11 @ 4:15PM

Nick| 6.16.11 @ 12:18AM

Red Phillips | 6.16.11 @ 2:28PM

Nick| 6.17.11 @ 2:50AM

Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.16.11 @ 3:06AM

Red Phillips | 6.16.11 @ 2:13PM

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.14.11 @ 8:04AM

JohnC| 6.14.11 @ 9:14AM