Since he has purported to enlist Jefferson Davis and the Confederates to his discredited cause of paleopantywaistism, I suspect he is suggesting that men like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson who served with distinction in the Mexican War were also on the side of paleopantywaistism when they stood with their state against the Union? I don't think so.
Let's see:
1) Despises all things military;
2) Resists war of any sort but particularly against the enemies of the USA;
3) Hallucinates that leaving Islamofascisti unopposed to consolidate their control over Islam will be better in the long run for the US;
4) Knee jerks uncontrollably at every opportunity to bash Bush or common sense or both;
5) Whines, moans and groans with as much skill and experience as any Senate Demonrat;
6) Will always blame America first, last and always.
7) Apparently regards murder by abortion and "gay" "marriage" as human "rights."
8) Hallucinates explicitly that WWII was a war for empire, ignoring small matters such as Pearl Harbor. EVEN THE AMERICA FIRST COMMITTEE folded its tent in the face of Pearl Harbor and Charles Lindbergh finally fought as an aviator after being made to spend three years begging FDR for the opportunity of proving that he was ready to be a patriot. We can know that Reese is not a Demonrat because???????
I think that both paleo as well as neo-cons are not conservative. That said, I understand that you have major issues with Reese's foreign policy stands, but do you disagree with this particular article?
....Because, generally speaking, Libertarians have no particular patriotism.
This is perfectly well-reflected in their economics: Me Me Me Me, screw You You You You.
Libertarianism, rightly understood, is actually a "watchmaker God" theo/philosophy--but its adherents are mostly agnostic or atheist.
That should be enough reasons.