This is why I love FR - it provides insight into the kind of belief system(s) a large segment of the population holds dear. As long as people willingly handicap themselves regarding the truth, then it makes it that much easier to financially succeed.
The truth of course is the exact opposite: The dominant US foreign policy doctrine is Imperialism. Once you understand this dynamic, then it almost becomes trivial to front-run decisions that lead to more deficit spending, more market pumping, and continued Fed zirp/nirp policies.
For those interested in the big picture, which VDH presumably decided to avoid - not that he doesn't understand, but because it doesn't fit the publisher's narrative - is that Putin's entire focus is the reserve currency. The dollar status is backed by the petro-dollar, which in turn is anchored by Saudi Arabia. (Bonus points for those who know why SA wasn't targeted after 9/11.)
The dollar is why the US can run up multi-trillions in international IOUs - we are the largest debtor nation in the history of mankind. It's what provides us with welfare & warfare spending far in excess of our true economic capabilities. It's the reason 100m working age people are not in the workforce. It's why we were able to outsource production to China without significant social disruption.
In short, it's the lynch pin currently holding the USA together. By forming a Shia crescent linking to Russia (and perhaps China), Russia will be in position to weaken SA via multiple angles of attack - conventional and unconventional. If Russia is ever able to effect regime change in SA that would also weaken the petro-dollar status, then Putin can put the reserve currency at risk.
Long before anything actually happened, the smart money would see what is occurring and begin to divest from dollar holdings. That will lead to inflation in the US (as all those useless dollars come home), and impact our continued ability to finance the military, and of course, keep illegals and inner city cesspools under control.
This Russian play in Syria is a very big deal. We completely fvcked up with Libya, giving Putin an entre on a platter to walk in as the good guy. There aren't any "good guys" - all conflicts are simple contests for economic dominion so that some may live a better life than others. We've hand an amazingly great run, culminating in the election of one BHO, the all time indicator of a people completely devoid of understanding how the world actually works.
Now, what if Libya was an act of treason by top US officials interested in private gain by seizing the store wealth of that country?
And if it was treason, then it points to a long process of debauched corruption that allowed the US to reach such a point where it willingly elected these people to their positions of power.
When the history of the US is written, will these links be examined that led to the proverbial "how do nations fail?". First slowly, then quickly.
Utter baloney. America the ONLY nation in history that has consistently and dogmatically LEFT conquered lands after kicking their ass: Mexico, Cuba, Germany, Japan, Iraq #1. We even pai Mexico the equivalent of BILLIONS after crushing their crappy army and occupying their capital.
In the dem party there are Realists, Liberal Interventionists, and antiwar pacifists. Sometimes liberal interventionists are called national security democrats, or liberal internationalists, or left wing hawks, or in the case of those like Joe Lieberman, left wing NeoCons.
There are also politically unaffiliated Realists: careerists in the military, state dept, CIA, etc.
GOP isolationists and dem pacifists have little influence on foreign policy. Foreign policy is determined Realists, Liberal Interventionists, and NeoCons.
Under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush the Realists were the dominant group. Under Clinton the liberal Interventionists rose to power and under Bush the NeoCons rose. Obama follows the Realists sometimes(such as on Israel) and the Liberal Interventionists sometimes.
NeoCons and Liberal Interventionists are Idealists, but NeoCons are unilateralists and Liberal Interventionists are multilateralists. Realists are realist/pragmatists.
A GOP prez's foreign policy team is always made up of Realists and NeoCons and he usually has Realists serve as Sec of State and National Security Advisor while the SecDef job goes to a NeoCon.
A dem prez's foreign policy team is always made up Realists and Liberal Interventionists and he usually appoints a Realist to serve as SecDef and National Security Advisor but gives the Sec of State job to a Liberal Interventionist.
There are exceptions to this. Bush replaced NeoCon Rumsfeld with Realist Bob Gates. Obama replaced Liberal Interventionist Clinton with Realist John Kerry, but he wanted to give the Sec of State job to Susan Rice(interventionist), but the GOP wouldn't confirm her so he gave her the NSA job that doesn't require congressional approval.
As SecDef, Obama has had GOP Realist Bob Gates, Dem Realist Leon Panetta, GOP Realist Chuck Hagel, and careerist Realist Ashton Carter.
The "wise old realists" are republicans Kissinger and Scowcroft plus the dem Zbig Brzezinski. You could also include republicans Schultz and Baker plus dems Sam Nunn and Lee Hamilton.
In the senate, Corker is the top GOP Realist. Feinstein is the top dem Realist. McCain is the top NeoCon. Menendez was the top liberal interventionist but he had to give his chair to Ben Cardin.