I was a Libertarian for a while but finally left last year because of their moronic foreign policy. I used to be a regular reader of the Hit & Run blog, also. Now I'm an Independent and I just can't stomach any party at all.

Cervus,

I'm not a party man either. Heck I voted Obama over Keyes in '04.

Better the communist than the theocon was my motto.

I do agree about Lib foreign policy.American foriegn policy since 1945 was pretty unified until '75 was unified. Station US troops near hot spots. Damp down the wars. Do not let them restart. Wars are bad for business.

It has been working well.

Iraq is just another step in extending that policy.

Thanks for the link to Mead. I read it a few years ago, but failed to bookmark it.

Libertarian anti-interventionism is indeed problematical, but so is Jacksonian reflexive belligerence. The former extends its principles beyond their domain of applicability, while the latter eschews principle in favor of populism and pugnacious impulse. It's a critical component of the divide between conservatives and doctrinaire libertarians.

America is hardly pugnacious. The attacks on American soil started in '93. It took another major attack for the US to respond. Hardly a hair trigger.

The Jacksonians, however, once they have the bit between their teeth will not give up until the enemy is totally pacified.

Doctrinaire is not a policy. It is a religion or in the case of Libs - a cult.

Non-interventionism can only work when an act of war is met with an overwhelming response. Anything else encourages a cost-benefit analysis to potential acts of war. (Actually, all the overwhelming response does is drive the cost so high that a comparable benefit is inconceivable, to split hairs.)

Phelps,

Overwhelming force is nice in the short run. However, if you get a rep for that it is hard to gain allies or keep them.

i.e. - bombing Japan was not enough. We had to support them once we had defeated them.