However .... I can list a number of things wrong with how both Eisenhower and Nixon dealt with the enemy. Eisenhower could have really smacked the commies in Asia harder and prevented both the Vietnam War as well as the China Threat. Nixon was way too into detent and listened way too much to Henry Da K.
The weapons of today and certainly tomorrow are very different than those of the past. So too must be the leadership.
Michael Lind is up something alright, but I can't say it on the board.
Poor analysis. The neo-con crap is a canard. Bush is from a long line of GOP bluebloods, Cheney was a strong Reagan ally and SOD of Bush I. Rummy is a lifelong cold warrior. And the biggest hawk of them all, Duncan Hunter, is a reagnite down to his toes.
A short list of Republicans this author likes. Says a lot to me.
Actually I think I would prefer the old Abe Lincoln Republican style of war
TOTAL warfare. Sherman's March through Tehran would be good.
The US military is designed to engage in war, fight battles, kick butt, win victory and get the out. Not get bogged down in potential losing scenarios. However, Lind has it wrong on one issue. The US military is underfunded. Reagan spent upwards of 28.1% of the budget on national defense. Even with the off budget costs of Iraq and Afghanistan thrown in, Bush43`s defense spending is 9%-10% less then what Reagan annually.
Spending 25% on the defesne of America is not out of line. If we didn't have such an insidious liberal welfare state to pay for, spending 40%-50% of the taxpayers money would be in keeping with the Constitution. Protecting the US homeland and its people are priority #1. Always has been. Its money well spent.
We fisrtly need to handle the 5th columnists in our own government,especially in the CIA, either quietly, or publicly.They need to be silenced, prosecuted or terminated.Government employees in violation of their oaths need to be tried or fired, or both.
Where is the old "Republican" doctrine on this. It did not exist.
Also we need to be aware that total war on any population is no longer politically acceptable in America. In the dyas of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan,it was acceptable, or tolerated.
Now every strike must be planned to avoid innocent civilians.Iraqui troops have a hard time understanding this and do not feel that we are serious in our military activities. We have managed to convnce them of our approach, barely.
We have the approproiate military policies in place. What we do not have is an insistance on loyalty at home, by calling subterfuge when it is encountered, a distinctly new dynamic, since the Vietnam War, and one which also deeply effected Nixon ( John Kerry's treason, Paris Peace Talks) Reagan ( Dems prevent contra funding, and Reagans end run.) Eisenhower would have simply shot anyone trying these modern day hi jinks.
That is the major change, politicians willing to sell their country down the tubes for a little power. And so far our ( so called) neo conservative president has not been up to the task.
That candidate is Chuck Hagel, if he ever get into the race.