Or maybe the NatCons oppose U.S. funding for the Ukraine War because the United States spent 20 years under three Presidents (Bush, Obama, Biden) and $2 trillion ($300 million every single day for 20 years) to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Your point is well-taken, M. WigWag, and tragic with a side of comedic irony. But it poses the question, should America only take on foreign commitments (such as fighting wars, nation-building, etc.) which are a) short, b) cheap, and c) have clearly defined off-ramps? American policy has often been accused of being oriented to the short term, with too little regard to the consequences (Afghanistan & Iraq invasions, Libya & Syria Interventions, Vietnam War). Is there a way that we might be able to limit our aims (and our exposure to risk) without completely withdrawing from world affairs?
Yes. A good place to start would be a warm embrace of the school of foreign policy known as realism. A foreign policy rooted in romantic notions (like democracy promotion, the inviolability of borders or surrendering sovereignty to flawed international institutions) should be eschewed at all costs.
Thank you. I gather from your comment that, when prioritizing principles for policy-makers, "promoting democracy" is not in the first tier of concerns. Noted, but I would also observe that our most important alliances have been with other democracies, at least since WWII. We tend to get along better with democracies than with autocrats. So, even if we are not "promoting" democracy in an active way by pestering autocrats to mend their ways and be more like us, democracies' national interests seem to find common cause on vital issues more often than not.
(Of course there will also be times when autocrats and democrats agree -- for example suppression of piracy off the coast of Somalia is a good thing for Petrocrats and democratic governments as well).
Supporting a democracy struggling against a dictatorship makes a lot more sense to voters than propping up a dictatorship whose rule is resented and resisted by his country's populace.
Supporting Ukraine under Zelensky is costing the US a fraction of the cost to support South Vietnam under Diem, Thieu, et al. against a theoretical foe: Communist insurgencies in SE Asia, inextricably linked to our Cold War Foes, the USSR and PRC, which would cause all of most of the regimes to fall like "Dominos" . Many, many lives later we learned that the real foe turned out to a strain of Marxist Nationalism energized by virulent of anti-colonialism.
Or maybe the NatCons oppose U.S. funding for the Ukraine War because the United States spent 20 years under three Presidents (Bush, Obama, Biden) and $2 trillion ($300 million every single day for 20 years) to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
Your point is well-taken, M. WigWag, and tragic with a side of comedic irony. But it poses the question, should America only take on foreign commitments (such as fighting wars, nation-building, etc.) which are a) short, b) cheap, and c) have clearly defined off-ramps? American policy has often been accused of being oriented to the short term, with too little regard to the consequences (Afghanistan & Iraq invasions, Libya & Syria Interventions, Vietnam War). Is there a way that we might be able to limit our aims (and our exposure to risk) without completely withdrawing from world affairs?
Yes. A good place to start would be a warm embrace of the school of foreign policy known as realism. A foreign policy rooted in romantic notions (like democracy promotion, the inviolability of borders or surrendering sovereignty to flawed international institutions) should be eschewed at all costs.
Thank you. I gather from your comment that, when prioritizing principles for policy-makers, "promoting democracy" is not in the first tier of concerns. Noted, but I would also observe that our most important alliances have been with other democracies, at least since WWII. We tend to get along better with democracies than with autocrats. So, even if we are not "promoting" democracy in an active way by pestering autocrats to mend their ways and be more like us, democracies' national interests seem to find common cause on vital issues more often than not.
(Of course there will also be times when autocrats and democrats agree -- for example suppression of piracy off the coast of Somalia is a good thing for Petrocrats and democratic governments as well).
Supporting a democracy struggling against a dictatorship makes a lot more sense to voters than propping up a dictatorship whose rule is resented and resisted by his country's populace.
Supporting Ukraine under Zelensky is costing the US a fraction of the cost to support South Vietnam under Diem, Thieu, et al. against a theoretical foe: Communist insurgencies in SE Asia, inextricably linked to our Cold War Foes, the USSR and PRC, which would cause all of most of the regimes to fall like "Dominos" . Many, many lives later we learned that the real foe turned out to a strain of Marxist Nationalism energized by virulent of anti-colonialism.
That’s a charitable take, to put it no less politely. The natcons don’t give me the impression that $$$ is their main concern.