I am not a neocon yet I believe the Iraq War was not just a good idea, it was a justified war.
I am a neocon and small gov conservative.
BTW, wasn't Ronald Reagan both a defense hawk (or "neocon," as this author would say) and a small government conservative at the same time? Or at least both of those general tendencies were within his fundamental principles.
This current president is libertarian on foreign affairs and national defense.
I would prefer a conservative, like Reagan in charge.
George Will is a big government AmnestyCon.
“Speak softly and carry a big stick” sure works a lot better than “bend over and carry a red crayon.
The Republican Party is, within itself, too far apart to stand. You can state all day that Reagan straddled both wings, but you still have to choose whether to run up trillions of debt TODAY (paid back by our children) to defend questionable allies who don’t add a bit to our security.
We spend more on “defense” (offense) than the next 13 nations combined. See http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/2014/03/30/debunking-the-gutting-of-military-storyline/
By far, the two greatest threats to America are debt, and WMD at our borders and airspace. How does defending Europe or SE Asia or Israel help with that?
The author of this article seems to have no idea what real Conservatives support. ....He even goes into the liberal lingo about “torturing prisoners”, when there has been no evidence of such torture. ...Just another liberal hack!
If the Iraq war was not prosecuted, Saddam Hussein would have continued working on a nuclear project. The world learned such from the CIA handler who spent a year with him while he was in prison. What would the cost have been if a nuclear device was detonated on Wall Street? How about a second one in Chicago? How about a third smuggled in by one one our illegal friends from the south of our border? Other than the military, I want our government to cut every penny it can where it is pratical. To me, Big Military does not mean Big Government. It means national survival.
The Constitution left such matters as civilian healthcare & education, wholly to the States & people. There is no legitimate Federal role. (Nor can one be imagined, which respects even common sense.)
On the other hand, adequate defense was one of the principal motives for even considering a Federation of the 13 new Nations, linked by the Articles of Confederation.
But an adequate defense is not the same thing, and does not equate with crack-pot projects to redefine other nations concepts of Freedom, morality & social order. Neocons tend to embrace those crack-pot projects, American Conservatives, show better sense.
For an enunciation of the differences between traditional American foreign policy, and what we have been seeing from the last three Presidents: An American Foreign Policy.
For a specific look at George W. Bush's Second Inaugural Address, from the perspective of the ageless wisdom of George Washington: George Washington Answers George W. Bush.
For a look at Obama's abuse of the Law Of Nations in Libya: Obama & Libya.
For a look at what Bill Clinton did against Serbia in Kosovo: American Foreign Policy At The Crossroads.
Reagan's actions were all aimed at dealing with a very real threat to America's continued existence, from a determined World Communist movement. He offers no precedent for the crack-pots who seek to challenge the very concept of independent nations. Dealing with a specific enemy does not equate to dealing with peoples with whom you simply do not share common values.
William Flax
The GOP has melded with the dem party.
What we see today is a vacuum.
What fills that vacuum is really up in the air at this point.
This is pretty un-predictable right now.
I know one thing....I am not the GOPs bitch.
They best not take the small government, social issue voter
for granted.
It seems that is what they plan to do if thats is the case, I will do whatever
I can as an individual to collapse the system.
BTW, wasn't Ronald Reagan both a defense hawk (or "neocon," as this author would say)Neocons aren't strong on defense. They're strong on intervention, invasion, and interference. They could give a dang about defense so long as they get to go to other countries and fire up the machineguns.
The author is a bit confused. Let's break it down.
If neoconservatives got their way, as they did during George W. Bush's first term, the United States would spend more on its military and wage war in more countries. Neoconservatives still believe the Iraq War was a good idea. They'd have preferred to keep our troops in Afghanistan longer.
Actually, 9/11 wrecks the author's curve. Iraq and Afghanistan were justified. The idea was not to keep our troops over there longer -- they should have been sent to win, win decisively and get the hell out, since combat troops are not nation builders and should not be employed as such. A true neo would want the troops out simply because they could then be deployed somewhere else.
They urged greater American involvement in Egypt and Libya. They wanted President Obama to intervene in Syria.
Military intervention is an option when national interest is threatened. It's very hard to make case for that in any of those three instances.