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)
- Scheuer: The Left’s “Black, Deviant, Ethnic, Terrorist and Feminist Coolies” - February 21, 2018
- Conspiracy and Collusion with Russia? - February 20, 2018
- Breaking Paris Intelligence from David Lebovitz - February 20, 2018