Absolutely true.
In a dangerous nuclear world, it is a full-time job for the U.S. government to protect the lives of the American people. That cannot be done by staying home and depending on two oceans to shield us, as the old-line conservatism of Patrick Buchanan seems to suggest.
Obviously the two oceans do not shield us from a nation equipped with ICBM's or SLBM's.
Given the facts that; (1) every nation and even non state actors pose a credible potential threat via nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, (2) the US is (for the time being) a relatively free and open society, (3) pathetic border control and lax immigration policies, the question is where does the US draw the line of pre-emption?
Sowell draws a distinction between US troops dying to enforce a Wilsonian world utopia as compared to troops dying to protect the US from potential threats. Again he is correct, but he avoids the central issues.
Those issues are the facts that (1) idiotic Wilsonian foreign policy created the enemies we currently face, (2) our attack on Iraq will harden the resolve of enemies we already have and create more in the bargain, and (3) the only way to make America truly safe is to establish an American led global empire with freedoms on par with the Soviet empire.
An empire based on legitimate security concerns is ultimately no different from a Wilsonian empire.
Freedom is not free. It's cost is a degree of risk. That is a cost I am willing to pay.
Regards
J.R.
I don't think control on this level is required. Our goal should be 190 "little Americas" all trading freely with each other. Federalism on a global scale.
To that end, I agree with the earlier comment regarding setting each nation up with a Constitution similar to ours, then stepping out of the way. If it fails, which some inevitably will, time enough to try again 15 years down the road...some will succeed, however, and move each toward government of, by, and for the people.