[Clemenza]

As I've said several times on this forum, we need Teddy Roosevelt and George Schultz, NOT Woodrow Wilson and Robert McNamara.

[GOP_1900AD]

However .... I can list a number of things wrong with how both Eisenhower and Nixon dealt with the enemy. Eisenhower could have really smacked the commies in Asia harder and prevented both the Vietnam War as well as the China Threat. Nixon was way too into detent and listened way too much to Henry Da K.

[rhombus]

The weapons of today and certainly tomorrow are very different than those of the past. So too must be the leadership.

[Stepan12]

I saw the author and that was enough. I think that creep wrote 'Up from Conservatism.'

Michael Lind is up something alright, but I can't say it on the board.

[pissant]

Poor analysis. The neo-con crap is a canard. Bush is from a long line of GOP bluebloods, Cheney was a strong Reagan ally and SOD of Bush I. Rummy is a lifelong cold warrior. And the biggest hawk of them all, Duncan Hunter, is a reagnite down to his toes.

[Cyber Liberty]

Call it the Eisenhower-Nixon-Reagan-Powell doctrine ...

A short list of Republicans this author likes. Says a lot to me.

[Centurion2000]

Whether a Democrat or a Republican is elected in 2008, the time is ripe for a reassertion of the traditional Republican way of war in America. By that I mean the approach to foreign policy of pre-neo-conservative Republicans such as Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Colin Powell - an approach that US President George W. Bush and the neo-conservatives have rejected in favour of a disastrous strategy inspired by cold war Democrats.

Actually I think I would prefer the old Abe Lincoln Republican style of war

TOTAL warfare. Sherman's March through Tehran would be good.

[Reagan Man]

What we shouldn’t be doing is using the US military as policeman to the world. That was a policy of liberals like Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960`s. Our armed forces shouldn’t be involved in nation building or spreading democracy to the Islamic world either. The latter is an effort in futility.

The US military is designed to engage in war, fight battles, kick butt, win victory and get the out. Not get bogged down in potential losing scenarios. However, Lind has it wrong on one issue. The US military is underfunded. Reagan spent upwards of 28.1% of the budget on national defense. Even with the off budget costs of Iraq and Afghanistan thrown in, Bush43`s defense spending is 9%-10% less then what Reagan annually.

Spending 25% on the defesne of America is not out of line. If we didn't have such an insidious liberal welfare state to pay for, spending 40%-50% of the taxpayers money would be in keeping with the Constitution. Protecting the US homeland and its people are priority #1. Always has been. Its money well spent.

[Candor7]

This is a pulling analysis. There is no going back to those policies, for we have a new dynamic from high tech weapons, more instantaneous press involvement, and outright leaking traitors within the government itself.

We fisrtly need to handle the 5th columnists in our own government,especially in the CIA, either quietly, or publicly.They need to be silenced, prosecuted or terminated.Government employees in violation of their oaths need to be tried or fired, or both.

Where is the old "Republican" doctrine on this. It did not exist.

Also we need to be aware that total war on any population is no longer politically acceptable in America. In the dyas of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan,it was acceptable, or tolerated.

Now every strike must be planned to avoid innocent civilians.Iraqui troops have a hard time understanding this and do not feel that we are serious in our military activities. We have managed to convnce them of our approach, barely.

We have the approproiate military policies in place. What we do not have is an insistance on loyalty at home, by calling subterfuge when it is encountered, a distinctly new dynamic, since the Vietnam War, and one which also deeply effected Nixon ( John Kerry's treason, Paris Peace Talks) Reagan ( Dems prevent contra funding, and Reagans end run.) Eisenhower would have simply shot anyone trying these modern day hi jinks.

That is the major change, politicians willing to sell their country down the tubes for a little power. And so far our ( so called) neo conservative president has not been up to the task.

[rmlew]

Eisenhower was an idiot.
Not only did he fail to roll back Communism ANYWHERE, but his continuation of FDR Third Wroldist policies hurt us.
In his zeal to destroy the British and French Empires, he helped birth new communist regimes. He also helped empower the Arab Nationalist and later Islamist movements by stabbing England, France and Israel in the Back in the Suez Crisis.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

That candidate is Chuck Hagel, if he ever get into the race.