It’s time to rein in America’s crusading zeal and move toward a policy of restraint. We’re suffering from a bad case of foreign-policy overextension, and the only cure is taking a step back to reexamine our global role.
Many Americans, including some of senior rank, appear to hold candy-coated views of the post-World War II U.S. occupations of Germany and Japan. Dealing with Iraq will be hard enough without enshrouding ourselves in myth.
Classifications such as interventionist and isolationist, hawk and dove, realist and idealist, and multilateralist and unilateralist do not make much sense in the absence of the Cold War's defining conditions.
Hillary’s false claim that she landed in Bosnia under hostile sniper fire has gotten a lot of attention, and deservedly so. Was her statement part of a larger political strategy?
If elected president, would Hillary Clinton be more concerned with the long-term interests of the United States or the way the political winds were blowing?
Anti-interventionists allege our leaders traded a strong, austere republic for a weak and sprawling empire predicated on a military might that could not match our own ambitions. This narrative negates real threats and real victories.
