Replies

The best example of the traditional view at work is the method used to bring down the Soviet Union; no shots were ever fired except when the USSR acted as aggressors (thus containment). The US also drove the arms race so that we were safe at the same time as the USSR was spending beyond its means to keep up. Reagan was the master of this strategy.

But haven't we simply replaced the Soviet Union in that regard? Are we not spending far beyond our means on foreign adventures? Spending our children's money and our children's children's money? We will not eventually end up financially exhausted, just like the Soviets, if we try to militarily pacify all who oppose US foreign policy?

As far as I can tell, the only winner in Bush's foreign policy is China. Ten years down the road our country will be overextended and China will be in a fantastic position to profit from our mistakes.

“But haven't we simply replaced the Soviet Union in that regard? Are we not spending far beyond our means on foreign adventures? Spending our children's money and our children's children's money? We will not eventually end up financially exhausted, just like the Soviets, if we try to militarily pacify all who oppose US foreign policy?”

Yes and no. We are spending at such an incredible rate that in just 10 years 40% of GNP will be devoted to servicing the debt. Obviously not a sustainable rate but not all of this pending catastrophe has to do with defense. There must be other spending cuts, but that’s another thread.

The difference between Iraq and USSR is that we went into a “hot” war when it is arguable if not just true that containment was working. The infrastructure in Iraq is in such sorry shape there because Saddam plundered his oil revenues after sanctions AND because of the sanctions themselves. There is no way to know how the story would have ended without the war, but it is clear that there was no imminent threat to the US at the time of the invasion. It is a sad reality that America cannot invade every country with a brutal dictator to free their people.

With that said Reagan and Bush Sr. would not have invaded Iraq in these circumstances. But either of those traditional conservatives would have invaded Afghanistan when we did but they would have done it differently. Rather than committing the absolute minimum number of troops to the project they would have gone in with both guns loaded and swarmed the country. If you doubt that simply look at the first Gulf War. The neocon belief system embraces a notion of “war lite,”, commit as few troops as you can so more actions can be taken preemptively.