No problem. While I agree with the writer of this article in some sense I think that both sides have to allow the debate on this very important issue of what our national strategy should be.
Bill Kristol on one side trying to oust any conservative who is not for war is dumb.
Similarly, Ron Paul labeling everyone who is for a pre-emption national strategy policy as a neocon and globalist is also dumb.
It’s a very important debate and one we should have. I say make your arguments and let fellow conservatives decide what is best going forward. While I like a lot of what both of them have said over the years, they are the extremes on the issue of our National Strategy post 9/11. I admit I am closer to Kristol on the issue but that in no way means that I favor getting into every possible engagement. The war in Libya is a prime example. I said we shouldn’t help the Europeans at that time and I believe that has shown to be a disaster to our national interests as well as Europe’s.
Foreign policy and national security are incredibly fickle subjects.
As the father of two Marines, if my sons get sent out to “war” I would like to know there is a clearly defined objective with an anticipated out come and a viable strategy to achieve that which comes from the military not from a politician.
Go, fight, win and come home.
I do understand there are times to occupy but I think that has been abused by politicians to such a degree that it is nearly unrecognizable.