Offhand, I don't know any conservatives who would disagree. Of course our meddling has made new enemies. The disagreement comes over the net effect: Has our meddling done more harm than good? And would lack of meddling have prevented new enemies, or merely be seen as weakness by potential enemies, who then are emboldened to become active enemies.
We want less military spending.
That's where the rub comes. The author thinks we've made a bunch of new enemies, and the appropriate response is to cut defense. Not entirely sure if that's logical.
Though there is an entirely logical argument to be had about whether our defense spending is logically allocated.
“Meddling” is not what Iraq was about, for conservatives. For Neocons, that’s exactly what it was. For conservatives, Saddam was a direct threat to us and allies. For Neocons, he was a threat to the NWO. Stosel is, perhaps unknowingly, being very slick here. The disaster in Iraq is not a validation of his philosophy any more than it validates Jeanine Gurofolo. It’s a steaming pile of postmodernism. It’s what happens when a country who’s in transition between prevailing paradigms goes to war.
Sometimes. In Germany, Japan, and post-Cold War eastern Europe, they made us allies and friends.