Originally Posted by
Skroe
You're smarter than that. Neocons, Relists, Liberal Internationalists and so forth all have significant overlap. You're making a rather rookie mistake of associating policies or outcomes you disagree with, with a group of people you have a particular dislike for, without considering the order of importance of the positions that make up that group of people.
I am definetly for example, a foreign policy nationalist. I'm that unapologetically. I believe the United States should do whatever is in it's interest and should take a zero-sum approach to it's foreign affairs vis a vis it's enemies and competitors. I wholheartedly, unreservedly reject any kind of "Citizen of the World" nonsense, whereby the US should do things out of a sense of commitment to the human race. I think those gestures - and they are gestures - get the US no gains whatsoever... not in the spaces that matter. The US possesses power greater than the rest of the world combined - financial power... political power... military power. It should not be afraid to use it. A very straightforward example is in comparing the size of the US Foreign Service to the Russian one. US Policy towards Russia pre-Ukraine was ideal in this regard. Russia's foreign service became absolutely swamped. It became a single-issue agency, and that issue was Syria. And it allowed us to expand our agenda in other areas that Russia didn't have the resources to counter us in, such as ties with India, relations in Central Asia, missile defense in the Pacific. We should use our resources an drown the opposition, like this, on a regular basis.
Being a nationalist in foreign policy doesn't make you a neocon, because you can be a realist or a liberal internationalists in that regard. It's a matter of means that issue. Neocons for example, are almost always unilateral. I think that's ridiculous. I think the most important asset US foreign policy is our immense network of allies around the world, who are all the richest, most technologically advanced industrial powers in the world... and by in large are liberal democracies. That's an incredible achievement and incredible resource. Neocons? They treat them shoddily. They don't respect them. Bush's team certainly made the US-French-German split in 2003 far worse because they demanded compliance. We should never demand and never take them for granted. In general, I put my belief on the immense importance of positive relations with allies and diplomacy in general on a level far, far beyond what Neocons do. They're too quick to jump to the military solution. I would see, for example, State department funding hugely increased and foreign aid vastly expanded. Soft-power is power. Neocons are too myopic to think that.
And of course, there is Israel. Neocon's i'd say, love Israel about as much as they love America. I think Israel is a largely worthless ally and should be put on ally-probation. I think paradoxically, they take us for granted. For years both the Bush Administration and Obama Administrations take hard, "no" stances to Israeli settlement building. The Israelis do it anyway. The Israelis engage in increasingly repressive and racist policies against Palestinians and Arabs, and then act surprised when they're condemned. They take our coverage of them in the international community for granted. And worse yet, American politicians seemingly will write blank checks for Israel, with some polls showing some Republicans will support Israel, even when Israeli and the US's interests diverge. That's insane to me. That tells me a relationship has gotten dangerous. Israel and the United States need space... lots of space. Israel is another country. It is not a protectorate. It is not a State. It is a foreign country with foreign leaders and the relationship needs to be renormalized to something with respect to that.