Actually, I am increasingly of the opinion that both the action in Afghanistan (what the hell do we need with a country named after a dog?) and the one in Iraq wee unnecessary.
In a rational world, no nation would support, or give sanctuary to terrorists who attack the country with the mightiest military in history. In a rational world, those that do, pay dearly. In a rational world, Libya, Iraq, Iran. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan would be radioactive, smoking ruins.
In a rational world, we would not be interventionist, but we would get revenge.
Communism is the tool of Satan to wreck havoc across the planet.
In a rational world, we would not be interventionist, but we would get revenge.
And THAT is where the public support for the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan came from.
The truth is that "Revenge" is what Americans really wanted after 9/11 -- -- to strike back and not feel helpless. But Americans are so geographically challenged that it became "Iraq, Afghanistan", same difference, it's all over there". It's NOT "the same difference".
Afghanistan, yes. They gave safe harbor to those who attacked us. We needed to take out al Qaeda there and there is evidence that it wouldn't have taken all that much to do so had we used the right strategy and not been distracted by Iraq.
But if someone took a step back for long enough to realize what's happened, they'd see that it was Saudi Arabia that needed (and still needs) removed from the face of the map. Saudis are playing both ends against the middle -- publicly befriending us to take our money, meanwhile sponsoring terrorism against us and other non-Muslim peoples around the world. If we took out Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan would ultimately become completely irrelevant. But the Saudis were protected by the longstanding friendship with the Bush family. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was Saudi Arabia that was the prime motivator and financial sponsor for the Iraq war.
Attacking Afghanistan was rational. But nothing else in our Middle East strategy (if there is one) for the last 20 years has been rational. It's probably irrational to us because we don't see all the strings being pulled and pockets being stuffed behind the scenes.
War is unfortunately sometimes necessary to defend yourself, but the point is to fight wars that you are going to get some relief/benefit from, not to make it a way of life that drains you, your people and your resources and leaves you with nothing -- even if you win.
So, having said all of that, I still agree that a RP non-interventionist policy should be our ideal, where we only go to war to defend ourselves and defend our direct interests.
But instead, we've empowered a globalist cabal who are determined to remake the world in their own image using our country, manpower and resources to do it for them --FOR THEM, not for us. Their strategy is that they reap the benefits and we wind up broke and disheartened, dependent on them for everything.
I, for one, don't want to play their game.