,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This is **incredible**—The section on Max Boot, especially, hits like a damned neutron bomb. theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-a…
Seeing a list of Max Boot’s preferred military interventions over the course of his career is shocking; for Boot, advocating for this war or another seems to be less a policy fetish than a legit mental disorder.
Partial list of proposed Max Boot invasions: Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Russia.
Like most people over 18 years old, Boot has a grasp of who our enemy or rival powers might be—and then he’s got exactly 1 policy to deal with all of them.
Like most people over 18 years old, Boot has a grasp of who our enemy or rival powers might be—and then he’s got exactly 1 policy to deal with all of them.
It should go without saying that this is deeply unserious. It’s the flip-side of a Code Pink foreign policy.
And yet—and yet!—John McCain, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio and countless GOP officials believed he was a Very Serious Person. They followed him off the cliff each time.
And yet—and yet!—John McCain, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio and countless GOP officials believed he was a Very Serious Person. They followed him off the cliff each time.
Let’s not forget about all the conservative magazines and websites that enthusiastically cheered him on—and it was basically all of them.
It’s entirely possible and legitimate to believe that this or that US military intervention is in the national interest.
It’s entirely possible and legitimate to believe that this or that US military intervention is in the national interest.
But so many people followed Boot and others—as Ianucci parodies it in the amazing film In the Loop: to “climb the mountain of conflict”—and support nearly all of them.
I don’t think this is psychopathic because I’m nessisarily against war as a rule, or that I believe Boot is wrong to oppose many of the countries he does.
But Boot—and his many GOP followers—don’t understand that foreign policy exists to strengthen the homeland.
But Boot—and his many GOP followers—don’t understand that foreign policy exists to strengthen the homeland.
A constant stream of foreign wars (especially un-won wars), as Codevilla warns, can destroy social cohesion in the homeland.
This is far more pressing of an issue than abstractions like “bring them freedom or they destroy us,” in Bernard Lewis’ words.
This is far more pressing of an issue than abstractions like “bring them freedom or they destroy us,” in Bernard Lewis’ words.
McCain’s declaration that the war on terror would last “100 years” was a sign that he couldn’t be trusted leading that war.
Democracies tire of non-stop conflict, and eventually, the desire to fight *always* runs out of steam.
Where were the pundits warning of that?
Democracies tire of non-stop conflict, and eventually, the desire to fight *always* runs out of steam.
Where were the pundits warning of that?
