Posted on 11/06/2014 1:12:02 PM PST by right-wing agnostic
Arkansas elected Republican Rep. Tom Cotton to the Senate on Tuesday, sending incumbent Mark Pryor packing. You might not be surprised that a Republican won in Arkansas in a heavily GOP year, but Cotton's victory is a much bigger deal than you probably think. His election is a significant step for the future of GOP foreign policy, and thus perhaps for American foreign policy.
Cotton, you see, is the golden child of the Republican party's hawkish establishment. He still calls the 2003 Iraq invasion a "just and noble" war. He's young — just 37 — and fervently backed by some of the most influential conservative figures in the nation. His Senate victory makes him a serious candidate for an even higher office some day. But even before then, his ascent could represent a larger movement in his party's foreign policy.
This sets him on a collision course with the GOP's other leading young voice on foreign policy: Sen. Rand Paul. One of Paul's top priorities is moving the Republican Party away from George W. Bush's neoconservatism; one of Cotton's is pulling the party back towards it. And given the slate of immediate foreign policy issues facing the Senate, the two are likely to be at odds sooner rather than later.
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
I will take an antiwar Republican over a neocon Republican everytime, Neocon = more big government, more deficit spending, more boots on the ground and more crony capitalism.
“You think we’ve accomplished anything useful since Bush left office? Just about everything Obama has done is to help the wrong side, including the illegal war in Libya.”
I agree fully.
But you wrote, “The 2003 invasion may well have been justified. But ever since it has been going steadily south, as we lost all vision and purpose” which made it seemed like you were saying it went bad beginning in 2003 — ie from the very start.
I also did not understand this: “War for the sake of war? And mostly being fought on the wrong side? I don’t think so. That’s McManiac’s dream.”
But this response from you makes me think we are in agreement.
I remember that movie.
I think the term neocon, to the extent it ever had any real meaning, has lost it.
Also, one can believe in American military action when needed without being in favor of crony capitalism.
Like me, for example. The big question, of course, is what qualifies as “when appropriate.”
For instance, do we just want to piss and moan about ISIS and its war on women and Christians, or are we willing to do something effective against them?
We absolutely, positively do have the power to destroy them whenever we decide to, so in the final analysis our failure to do so boils down to refusing to do so because it’s inconvenient or because we believe it’s unwise.
Both positions make valid points, but if you CAN stop an evil and choose not to do so, then please stop whining about its existence.
“One of Paul’s top priorities is moving the Republican Party away from George W. Bush’s neoconservatism; one of Cotton’s is pulling the party back towards it.”
So it’s now ONE OR THE OTHER. Funny, Reagan was never accused of being an Isolationist (Paul) or being a Neoconservative. Reagan was simply a conservative, and acted in this country’s interest. Had Reagan gone into Iraq in 2003, he would have overthrown Hussain, installed someone better, and left. That used to be US policy.
They'd be fools to follow his cue and create more animosity within the party.
He's not the only one to portray Cotton as a neocon, though.
If Tom Cotton starts hanging out with McCain and Graham too much, what does that do to his reputation here?
I doubt they agree with everything, but on invading everything in sight I think they see eye to eye.
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.