[UnBlinkingEye]

Pretty much all conservatives today agree on the need for a strong, vigorous foreign policy.

The author has confused conservatives with neocons. True conservatives align themselves with George Washington's Farewell Address, which advises no entangling foreign alliances.

There is no constituency for isolationism on the right, outside the Buchananite fever swamps.

Mr. Boot and his globalist point of view is destroying America's image as a shining city on the hill.

The question is how to define our interventionism.

The answer is a tragic tremendous mistake. We should lead by example not force.

[Stavka2]

The question is how to define our interventionism.

Lets see: humanitarianism, sole superpowerism, sticking it to the bad guys off of our payroleism, McWorldism, for the childrenism, antiterrorism, anticommunism, antioppositionism, popularity pollism, get them firstism, military-industrial complexism, imperialism, protect the Saudisism, or: woke up on the wrong side of the bedism?

[TLBSHOW]

Mr. Boot is the Olin senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

need I say more?

[Joe Hadenuf]

Great post.

[ricpic]

The author has confused conservatives with neocons. True conservatives align themselves with George Washington's Farewell Address, which advises no entangling foreign alliances.

---

Max Boot acknowledges that the attempt to change the political face of the middle east would be a huge undertaking. At the same time he denies that it would be an act of hubris.
Washington had been tempered by hard experience; experience of limits. With his immense foresight he saw not only the dangers posed to the republic by foreign entanglements, but that foreign entanglements would inevitably move us from republican virtue to the hubris of empire.
We are already far down that path. This latest "dream" will just harden the mold.