Global War on American Prosperity

Remake the Middle East?  We can't even remake Detroit

Our major combat forces are out of Iraq, and we're ramping up in Afghanistan, hoping to make enough gains so we can disentagle ourselves from there as well.

James Antle asks if conservative are ready to say "To hell with the hawks."

However reluctant conservatives may be to question retroactively the justice of our Bush-era wars, many are beginning to wonder if our prolonged occupations and nation-building exercises are worth American blood and treasure.  (AmCon- Antle)

I agree.  We should continue to reserve the right to reach out and smack someone, but the endless wars will end up breaking us.

Beware People Beating War Drums Who Have Never Been to War

I long ago grew tired of the tinny war cries of the William Kristols and the Frank Gaffneys.  If they want to invade Iran (a terrible idea), they can go raise their own damned army and do it themselves.  That country has the most pro-American populace in the Middle East outside of Israel.  Killing them and breaking their stuff is a sure way to blow it.

“Nation-building is the most prominent — and most important — part of the neocon doctrine,” wrote Jed Babbin in the American Spectator. “And the decision to pursue it is the principal reason that we are losing in Afghanistan, Iraq is falling apart, and the real enemy — the terror-sponsoring nations — have grown stronger.”

Neocons are Neo-Wilsonian Progressives

Antle goes on to identify three foreign policy strains of American conservatism, "... Jeffersonians, the Wilsonians, and the Jacksonians."  Go read the whole article and you will see why invasions and nation-building are very un-conservative activities.

Less is More

Respected journalist and scholar Robert D. Kaplan points to the future of American Military intervention in his 2007 article, Unheralded Military Successes.  He specifically highlights our low-key successes in Colombia and The Phillipines.

... the missions in Colombia and the Philippines showcase low-cost, low-risk and tediously unspectacular counterinsurgency options. And these places are not alone. Other U.S. military deployments I have observed recently -- in Algeria, Mali, Niger, Kenya, Georgia and Nepal -- are variations in a minor key. What stands out about all of these missions is their small scale and implicit modesty. We are not in combat in any of these countries -- but, rather, training local militaries that are or might be.

In all these countries, our military aid is combined with civilian development assistance. This is the global war on terrorism as preventive rather than as proscriptive. It doesn't cost much. You could spread Green Beret teams across Africa for the price of one F-22 jet. If there is another model out there that will keep the U.S. military engaged without overextending it, and will help move along inter-agency cooperation, I have not seen it.

I believe what he says because I've seen it myself in Colombia as well as other Central and South American countries. With a little military assistance, we chased communism from Central America in the 1980's, and Kaplan relates how we trained Eastern Europeans in the 1990's, building friendships that paid dividends after 9/11.

What's the common theme in all of this?
Small footprint, inexpensive, culturally-sensitive operations that help people who are willing to help themselves.  We conservatives bristle at progressives who want to remake America, so why should we support such budget busting efforts in other countries?