[ek_hornbeck]

The issue, arming the Syrian rebels, is not about political parties, it is about foreign policy doctrine. What do the NeoCons(R) think? What do the Liberal Interventionists(D) think? What so the Realists(R & D) think? What do the Isolationists(R) think? What do the Antiwar Pacifists(D) think.

Unfortunately, when it comes to foreign policy, our choices seem to have narrowed down to neocons (GW Bush, McCain) vs. liberal interventionists (Obama, Clinton). We haven't had a realist candidate on the ballot since Reagan or an "isolationist" since Robert Taft ran for President. And the Democrats haven't run a "pacifist" since McGovern.

[Ben Ficklin]

The problem is not neocons vs liberal interventionists. It is the coalition between neocons and the liberal interventionists.

You can make the broad generalization that under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush that the Realists had the upper hand but under Clinton the liberal interventionists rose to power and under GW Bush the neocons rose to power.

In 2008 McCain campaigned on a NeoCon foreign policy and Obama campaigned on realist foreign policy. In 2012 Romney went to great lengths to try to project that Realists and NeoCons would have a place in his admiministration, but towards the end of the campaign it became obvious that the NeoCons would be in charge if Romney won.

Bill Clinton retained General Powell(realist) as joint chief, but he resigned because he strongly disagreed with the liberal interventionist Albright. General Powell also resigned under GHW Bush because he strongly disagreed with NeoCon Cheney.