The Chicago Boyz are having an interesting dialogue on Interventionism vs. Non-Interventionism in foreign policy.

I happen to agree that it's wrong to smear non-interventionists with the "isolationist" label. That's never been a fair characterization. Prior to 9/11, I would have considered myself a non-interventionist--although over time I came to view the Cold War as a necessity, I also argued that after the Cold War ended we should adopt non-interventionism as our primary foreign policy stance again. That was my primary complaint with Clintonian foreign policy in fact.

After 9/11, I came to the conclusion that non-interventionism will never be an option until most of the globe is democratized. Given that about 60% of the world is democratized now, whereas 100 years ago almost none of it was, I don't find that an unrealistic hope. It'll just require the expenditure of lots of effort. An expenditure I have reluctantly come to the conclusion is an utter necessity.

And, since so much of what we laughably refer to as "the international community" is made up of thugs and theocrats, who also happen to rule that ridiculous body known as the United Nations, for now that falls upon a few brave democratic nations. Starting with the U.S., like it or not.

(Honestly, I don't much like it, and I wish it were otherwise, but oh well. Wish in one hand and crap in the other, see which fills up first.)

Anyway, you may want to leave your comments with the Boyz.