It's impossible to truly move back to the traditional roots (if by that you mean early 20th century roots) of the GOP without adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy. While there have been hawks in the Republican past (see Abraham Lincoln for one) generally the stance of much of the party from the early 1900's up until Eisenhower (who deviated in a limited way) and further until George H. W. Bush (who certainly deviated from that principle in a more egregious way) was non-interventionist.
I don't fear what will happen to us if we pull out immediately. Think about it. These guys have been fighting amongst each other for centuries and beyond. If we remove ourselves out from the middle of their endless conflicts, then they will most likely begin (as they always have done) to fight amongst themselves again---thereby leaving them little time or resources to fight against us and insufficient motive for doing so.
And it will leave us with more time, manpower and resources to shore up our defenses here at home (including reversing this sometimes insipid trend of domestic base closures which have happened under both Clinton and George W. Bush). A real, formidable national defense and less incentive for enemies to attack us---sounds like the plan for me.
Gee,
I had to leave when all the bloodlust boiled over after 9/11. The authoritarianism was just shocking.
Its nice to see that abate somewhat - at least on this thread.
Go Ron Paul!!!