Like Havisham, Sowell is one of my constant touchstones for the tradition of Burke and Kirk. That being said, it's unfortunant that Sowell didn't cite the America First crowd, Taft and other conservatives from the 1920-1941 era who were so isolationist that they served as virtual pacifists. Some of the Paeleo-Conservative and Libertarian writers carry on that tradition to this day.
While a majority of conservatives of all stripe condemned the Kosovo campaign, even that wasn't universal. The question is when does the conservative tradition of non-involvement in foriegn wars outside our stategic interests stop and assisting the liberal pacifictic tendancy begin? Even R. Kirk condemned Desert Storm, echoing Burke in asking "going to war over an oil can?" (a position where I differed with Kirk, my other touchstone)
Some, such a Antiwar.com, claim the mantel of libertarianism and cite even our situation now as resorting to war too soon and improperly.
I believe War is the final arm of diplomacy. Discourse between nations starts with words, and in the best of times ends with words and agreements fostering just relations. In the worst of times, war is the answer -- not the problem. It would have been better if Sowell had cited and acknowledged the muddled message of broad conservatism on this issue. It would have made the condemnation of liberal pacifism that much more concrete.
Good point. Maybe Dr. Sowell will tackle the subject next week after the need to vent about the Universities and leftist / international busybodies cools. You are very wise. I still want to kick Janet Reno's clymer.