At the National Interest Jacob Heilbrunn tersely characterizes the Republicans’ relentlessly interventionist foreign policy stance:
The Republican Party is heir to a failed foreign policy that it has never fully confronted. The man who forced a partial confrontation has just secured the party’s nomination. But the reaction of the party elite appears to be that the best approach is to return, as soon as possible, to the old doctrines and nostrums and that it best to focus, not on the current election, but on establishing the parameters for 2020.
We have been at war continually for the last 25 years. Calling it what you will but when you’re firing missiles at people and dropping bombs on them, it’s war.
And, even worse, it’s not reducing our danger but increasing it. The stated reasons for both attacks on the World Trade Center were U. S. policies in the Middle East. Check the motives being given by self-activated terrorists here. They think they’re defending Muslims.
When something isn’t working, the rational thing to do is change what you’re doing.
After 9/11 it was taboo to consider the attacks as anything other than war on our freedom. And it’s not going to change if we get attacked like that again. Our foreign policy is just a reflection of our nutso authoritarian leanings. I mean, politically we’ve gone from celebrating bravery performed by amateur soldiers hoping to survive to making heroes out of professional killing machines who can’t get enough of that war elixir.
This is why I vote based on foreign policy. I’ve been personally involved in most of these wars to a greater or lesser extent and have long thought we are too quick to use military solutions. One of my very rare votes for a major party candidate was GWB who promised a more humble foreign policy – that was the only reason I voted for him. We know how well that worked out.
That’s why I will never vote for Hillary – she’s a hawk’s hawk.