[Resolute Conservative]

I like isolationism at this point. Eff the world. I would not sacrifice one boy’s life in our military to protect anyone across either ocean or south of the river.

[Robert DeLong]

The problem with isolationism, is when you allow the wrong leaders (dictators and the like) to invade and gain territories and resources uncontested. That eventually leads to world wars. The good thing about our military is we can cause a lot of damage without placing any of our brave men and women in harms way who are willing to make sacrifices to protect this country. At least in the beginning. At some point in time it may require boots on the ground depending upon the circumstances.

But I agree the reasoning for engaging should be extremely compelling, and must constitute a high degree of threat to our national interest. It should be done as the Framer's intended, through an Act of War declared by Congress. If the President can accomplish engagement that does not put our brave men & women in harm's way then he is free to do so without an Act of War from Congress. Even that though should be limited and Congress should still be in control of the purse strings for those types of engagements. I don't want to neuter the President, but I don't want him capable of open-ended engagements at his sole discretion.