Posted on 09/04/2013 9:52:20 AM PDT by nuconvert
The initial bombing of Afghanistan to destroy Al Quaeda cells and their Taliban enablers following the 9/11 attacks, yes. Staying there for over a decade to keep the peace among warring tribes and to "nation build," no.
Both liberal and neoconservative interventionists use the red herring strategy of conflating legitimate self-defense and national security efforts with internationalism. Of all the post-Cold War interventions and likely interventions, the first few months of the conflict in Afghanistan were the only ones with a national security component. The rest were mistakes or outright deceptions.
It depends on how you view the use of chemical weapons...if you see this as a violation of international norms of warfare, and you do not interven, it is isolationist...
because you are then saying, WE will not uphold certain “limits in warfare “ (which is bizzare to say the least).
However, in this case it is more complicated just because we DON”T have any reliable intel...so going in there the questions becomes “Who do you stop from using the chem weapons? WHO do you punish? And HOW do you stop them?”
The alternative also is to say “We don’t care who uses what in warfare on others, or our troops, etc.”
And the problem as always is that America has been THE Major Power on the world stage and has always been the most decent standard bearer of freedom and human rights. ironically, Obama does not want us to be the major player...
However, when Iran, China or Russia become the “Major Power”, well, the world will be in a very dark place.
My opinion is that in WWII we were the Leader and we “reshaped” Germany and Japan by their surrender and our —for a time—staying there and Making the change ( to our and the world’s benefit).
In the last few decades we have “intervened” but not sought an definitive VICTORY with our calling the shots on what happens after war. THAT is folly and also a waste of effort and lives and treasure. To win in Vietnam and give up the peace to the enemy,same in Iraq and Afghanistan..is beyond stupid and tragic.
That we should not have gone to war in 1917 to make sure Britain and France kept their colonies, and divided up Germany's colonies between themselves and Japan?
Heresy!
Well the WSJ favors flooding the US with unending mass immigration from all corners of the world. So maybe they figure this is a way to get thousands of Syrian refugees.
Bret Stephens’ ode to a red herring - declining to get involved in Syria after the left sabotaged our efforts in Iraq, and Obama’s unserious surge in Afghanistan isn’t being isolationist. Having as little to do with Islam is being smart. We’ve had enough of fool’s errands and the so called religion of peace. Quarantine islam.
That's the new definition of the term isolationism?
What is this guy smoking?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.