Writing in the American Conservative, Daniel Larison looks at what a “Tea Party” foreign policy really means. I liked the way Larison rolled out his argument and asked two of my Cato Institute foreign policy expert friends, Chris Preble and Justin Logan, if they thought Daniel was on target. The answer was yes from both.
Chris adds that Larison “fixes on an important distinction: being opposed to nation building doesn’t necessarily make one opposed to war. Rumsfeld was opposed to nation building. If one thinks that we can go to war without having to clean up after (to insure that what comes after isn’t worse), then one is likely to go to war more often.”
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Does a Massive Military Need a New Spending Increase? - February 23, 2017
- The Three Greatest Presidents are Easy, Then It’s a Battle - February 22, 2017
- Is a Trump/Putin Partnership Over before it Started? - February 21, 2017