[ninenot]

Well, we have to look at the same question I asked BE: what, exactly, IS "the national interest?"

In the current situation, for example, it may be in OUR interests that UN troops are sent to Sudan (or Congo.) Both countries are run by slimebag despots who are wholesale eliminating parts of their population.

BUT--there are not a whole lotta US troops to spare.

[inquest]

In the current situation, for example, it may be in OUR interests that UN troops are sent to Sudan (or Congo.)

If for some reason it's in our interests to send troops into those places to quell the situation, then we might as well send our own troops. If we don't have enough troops for that, then (I suppose) we could pay another country to go in and take care of it, which is functionally no different from having the UN do it, seeing as how we'd end up paying for it anyway. But to have a permanent establishment like the UN is not necessary, and always has a dangerous potential.

[BlackElk]

ninenot: There certainly are no troops to spare. The mistake du jour is in not doing whatever is necessary to bring reservists home, replace them with young regular servicemen, and escalate military pay and perks as necessary to overwhelm our "insurgent" (paid criminal) enemies in Iraq and elsewhere and bring troop strength back to Reagan era levels. We have not yet recovered from Clintonian military cuts much less restored the military strength of Reagan's era and we are trying to fight a war on the cheap (for the government) by dragging reservists back to active duty. That it is legal does not make it wise.

We can also allow Mexicans and Latin Americans to earn American citizenship through military service. With GI bill, one generation from rural Mexican poverty to college credentials and home ownership (and conservative Republicanism since they are already social conservatives and will be military conservatives) via six or so years active duty service in good behavior and reserve status thereafter.

As to Pakistan, a green light to India would do a lot. Otherwise, we will get there when we get there. What paleos think of the manhood of interventionists never has been a concern and never will be and there is no reason why it should be.

i & i: You have as much in the way of my researching for you as you are going to get. I will not honor your imagined authority to dictate what I supposedly owe you. Read despicable pantywaist Raimondo's anti-American and anti-Semitic blatherings on antiwar.com or Fleming's on Chronicles.com or not as you see fit. I owe you absolutely nothing. I personally hope that the wars place an especially heavy burden on you in material terms. I do not wish you well. You are NOT conservatives as anyone active in the movement would readily realize. Peddle your sniffles elsewhere. I will respond as I see fit or not as I see fit.

I now leave both of you to ninenot who may be closer to your views but is infinitely more rational.