We should not be in the business of launching wars, because wars of choice are irrational wastes of our resources and distractions from our real interests; preventive war is illegal and a violation of another state’s sovereignty and it is bound to lose us more internationally than it could ever gain us. Of course, aggressive war is also profoundly unjust, but it is not necessary to believe that to recognize the folly of it. Likewise, dominating other nations is inherently wrong, but one does not need to believe this to understand that it invites blowback and undermines national security.

Non-interventionism does not require you to subscribe to a particular moral vision, but it is not in conflict with Christian teaching or the principle of non-aggression, and those who understand justice as minding one’s own business will find much to recommend it. There is a constitutional concern that empire corrupts the state, but while this is a real concern for right-Jeffersonians I do not think it is the dominant one as Millman claimed.

Injecting moralizing into foreign policy makes necessary compromises and temporary alliances much more difficult; it leads to demonizing foreign governments and dehumanizing enemies. “Values” talk puts ideological blinders on policymakers and lures them into all sorts of trouble where they feel obliged to show solidarity and support for one side or another in a foreign dispute or internal conflict. Even if this rhetoric is used just for propaganda purposes, it takes on a life of its own and propels us in very dangerous directions. It encourages the development of theories of global ideological rivalry that pit other great powers against us as a matter of necessity because their regimes are supposedly inherently antithetical to ours. Calling the use of this language hypocrisy does not do it credit–the moralizing and “values” talk make the people who engage in them feel as if they have license to use any means necessary to pursue their goals. This is the point I was making in the foreign policy divisions post earlier in the week.

I think the government should act with justice and respect toward other nations, but what should determine the nature of our policies is the American interest narrowly defined.

Really? That certainly isn’t true of what one might call left Jeffersonians, if that term makes any sense. It doesn’t seem to be true of your views, as you frequently (and correctly) invoke the injustice and immorality of our actions toward other nations.

But I certainly think we definine vital national interests, meaning those which require military intervention, differently. Do we havea ntional interest in reducing opium production in Afghanistan? I don’t think so, but maybe. Is it a vital national interest, meaning the State would fail were it to be neglected? That would be a delusional argument, surely. In fact, Afghanistan as a whole does not represent a vital national interest.

The same thing could not be said for our direct involvement in a shooting conflict between Pakistan and India which, to repeat myself, is another reason why we need to get the Hell out of Afghanistan as rapidly as possible. The notion of our pacifying all of Afghanistan and part of Pakistan is a dangerous Chimera….it ain’t gonna happen. These alleged realists say that Pakistan will turn into a failed state if we don’t resolve the problems there. I suspect (though I don’t think that you agree with me here) that Pakistan is already a failed state and that our only real interest there is watching their nuclear weapons. This all gets messy with respect to China and Russia which is one more reason an excess of caution would be a virtue.