[rabscuttle385]

Sen. Paul added: “Reagan’s foreign policy was one in which we were somewhere, some of the time, in which the missions were clear and defined, and there was no prolonged military conflict—and this all took place during the Cold War.”

FYI

[ansel12]

I served under Reagan and was reviewing offers for mercenary work during his administration, and I never saw him as an isolationist. It seemed to me that Reagan was everywhere in the world, and he sure was increasing our reach and material in Europe, as he was increasing our global Navy.

[Prokopton]

Our Founders warned us over and over again about the dangers of foreign entanglements and foreign intervention. It is part of the statism, shared by Democrats and Republicans, that is pushing the dangerous course we're on.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Thanks for posting this anti-revisionist essay.

Everyone wants to cloak themselves in the mantel of the great one.

Neoconservatives are like Christian Scientists: they're neither.

[truthfreedom]

Great article

[Oceander]

Perhaps someone ought to remind Mr. McCain of the words of the first holder of the office he tried in vain to occupy in 2008, namely, Washington's warnings against foreign entanglements.

[Batrachian]

Reagan made a critical mistake there. Maybe he had no choice, but running home with a bloody nose like that sent very much the wrong message to the enemy. I admire Reagan as much as anyone, but I won’t sugar coat what happened.

[PieterCasparzen]

IMHO...

There is no comparing today to President Washington’s times; then America was not a major world power and was much more physically isoloated than today. Isolationism was generally a good starting point for policy in that case. Today, we are the dominant power in the world and a force for good and a force for stability. Also, today’s weaponry can reach across oceans in minutes and is incredibly more lethal than colonial weaponry. Obviously being too adamantly isolationist, i.e., having a policy of zero military action or presence anywhere unless we have been hit with a physical attack is not only unwise but impractical. Given the stealth invasion of muslim terrorists via the commercial air transport system, perhaps that is where isolationism should start, by plugging that hole in the armor.

All that being said, policy needs to be refined on an ongoing basis to respond to changes in the world. Also, policy should have a direction or an end, so as to not simply change with the wind, though it may be advantageous to change from time to time. Policies can be very detailed and the President, of course, does not write all these details themselves. Most often they communicate their ideology enough to create a starting point and manage others who develop and implement in more detail. While they certainly can get into details and in certain situations that may be called for and optimal, micro-managing is often a terrible mistake for an executive to make. Ultimately then it is principles and vision that a President needs, that guide their policymaking. In the case of foreign relations, they then they need the ability to lead and manage the Secretaries of State and Defense so their vision comes to fruition. Perhaps that is why so many hearken back to the glory days of both Washington and Reagan: those two men each had a vision which was optimal for America in their times,espoused principles at once timeless and righteous, and articulated and effected them with great success.

[MNJohnnie]

Well you can believe this fantasy if you ignore all of Reagan's record to just focus on Lebanon. Just forget Reagan and Bombing Libya, Nicaragua and the Sandinistas, Iran/Iraq war, Grenada, Deploying Pershing 2 missiles to Europe, rebuilding the US military etc etc etc

Once again the libertine fantasy crashes on to world to ruin on the rock of factual reality.