You think the bias all goes one way, I see it going the other way in your interpretation. I'm willing to grant that the truth probably lies somewhere in between, but then when you look at the underlying fundamentals of respect for human rights in our country vs. Iran, I think we deserve more benefit of the doubt.

I realize that an interventionist foreign policy goes against some schools of conservatism, and I have no problem with saying that I'm not a libertarian on foreign policy, for example. I accept that on the concept of promoting regional stability, that the lines can be drawn in different places and care must be taken not to allow that to become a rationalization for pursuing our interests at the expense of others (as we've done in the past by supporting dictators in the interest of stability.) But I disagree with you about defining it on the basis of actual lives at stake, because freedom, autonomy, and quality of life for those individuals matters very much too. If not going to war means allowing a dictator to ruin the lives of millions of people, have them live in fear, abject poverty and squalor, then I don't find that choice to be morally superior to going to war to try to change that (keeping in mind of course that we don't always have the option to go to war to change things, if doing so ends up in a power vacuum like in Iraq.)

would it have been wrong for the other nations of Europe to have refused to give in to Hitler's territorial demands earlier (taking a different course than they took with the Munich agreement which ceded Czech), and were they wrong for declaring war on Germany when it invaded Poland, for example?

The answer to that question depends on how you view the arena of collective self defense. But it's clear in any case that Germany initiated the conflict. They made the territorial demands, they invaded Poland. But if you take the beginning of that war and analogize it with Iraq or Vietnam, the U.S. and France becomes the Germans, because we started the war free of any imminent threat.

But your philosophy seems to indicate that only when a country is attacked can it then respond- while I say that when there's an attack on an ally one should respond, or when there's a real threat to regional stability.

I agree with you except for the last part, “or when there's a real threat to regional stability.” That's a little too vague IMO. It reminds me a lot of what our president's often say about “protecting American interests.” Before you start killing people, you better be defending lives, not stability, not geopolitical interests, but actual lives.

If the democratic nations don't step in to police the world, then the dictators will have free reign.

How very un-conservative and Wilsonian of you It's not our right to tell other people how to run their countries. Dictatorships are bad, but our focus should be on promoting peace and prosperity, not necessarily democracy.

It's the fact that you interpret the US actions and rhetoric much more harshly than the Iranian that we conservatives find disturbing;

I don't know how an unbiased observer could come to any other conclusion. We're the ones invading countries, pushing for harsh economic sanctions and threatening more military action. How many people would look at the situation in the Middle East and believe that the Iranians are a greater threat to stability than we are?

I don't know how you could possibly view the US as having worse intentions since we STILL uphold human rights and freedoms to a far higher degree than govts like Iran do.

The US gov't may or may not have good intentions. But even if the intentions are good and pure, they are still based in a misplaced sense of imperial entitlement. It's the idea that the world is ours to control and change as we please.

But on the other hand, you seem to see no danger of taking things too far in the other direction and assigning all of the moral responsibility on the US.

When we are the ones initiating the conflict, we must assume moral responsibility.

Obviously each situation is different and I'm not trying to draw a direct comparison (certainly not trying to invoke Godwin's law ) But your philosophy seems to indicate that only when a country is attacked can it then respond- while I say that when there's an attack on an ally one should respond, or when there's a real threat to regional stability. That's based on a belief that just as in the physical world, nature abhors a vacuum, so too does human nature abhor a power vacuum in the geopolitical world. If the democratic nations don't step in to police the world, then the dictators will have free reign.

I can't tell from your arguments whether you agree with that at all- but even if you do, I realize you might interpret differently the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear intentions. I guess I'm trying to figure out how far apart our positions are, and whether you disagree on the specific applications or on the more general principles.

One thing too, is that I think you take the same information that I do and analyze it in a completely opposite manner. You feel that other countries will look at our actions and see belligerence, and that this then leads them to take a more belligerent stance (in a sense, you seem to feel they're justified in those opinions.) Yet I see Iran's actions as belligerent, and I think we have a right to interpret them that way and react- which justifies our 'bellicose rhetoric' in the sense that it's defensive (defending the status quo which protects our ally Israel) rather than offensive (as though we refuse to coexist peacefully with Iran.) It's the fact that you interpret the US actions and rhetoric much more harshly than the Iranian that we conservatives find disturbing; after all, no matter how much you apply a critical lens to the two governments, I don't know how you could possibly view the US as having worse intentions since we STILL uphold human rights and freedoms to a far higher degree than govts like Iran do. I can see where you might argue that people on 'my side' take American exceptionalism too far (and I'd agree there's a danger of that- the ends doesn't always justify the means and we shouldn't get a free pass.) But on the other hand, you seem to see no danger of taking things too far in the other direction and assigning all of the moral responsibility on the US.

Is it not possible to discuss a general foreign policy without it being about Iraq?

It's a key component of McCain's foreign policy. If you'd like to talk about our last big counterinsurgency campaign we could always talk about Vietnam.

No one is taking the military option off the table, because it would be foolish to give Iran a blanket promise that we're not going to bomb strategic targets or even invade if we felt that the security of the region or our ally Israel demanded that.

The military option is never off the table for legitimate self defense. Iran's possession of weapons, weapons research or weapons factories does represent an imminent threat to Israel, the United States or the region as a whole. It'd be great if they didn't get them, but you, McCain and other hawks shouldn't be so willing to start a war over it.

And if you take your stated beliefs to their logical conclusion, then there isn't a candidate that you could support either because none of them are going to shrink the military or avoid all wars.

It's too bad that no 'serious' candidate is willing to question the bloated military budget. There are candidates (Obama & Clinton) that are at least, rhetorically, reluctant to engage our military in new conflicts. And for the record, I don't support avoiding all wars, I just don't think we should be starting them.

Why would anybody be surprised, on this site or anywhere else?

Maybe that will clarify for you that I'm not defending Bush's entire foreign policy, not by a long shot. One reason I pointed you to the Gates' speech is that I'm much closer to him than to the pre-Gates' WH stance. I think he 'gets' the integration part much better, and I think that had he been Sec Def all along we'd be much better off. And I think that Bush appointing him (whether through his own evolution of thinking or being forced into it by the '06 whupping) does indicate a change in course. No one is taking the military option off the table, because it would be foolish to give Iran a blanket promise that we're not going to bomb strategic targets or even invade if we felt that the security of the region or our ally Israel demanded that. But that's not the same as saying that 'we are going to bomb you.” Basically the difference is that if Iran is not a threat to us or the region, then we're not a threat to them.

To put it yet another way, you, McCain, Bush, Lieberman, etc. have an unrealistic faith in the ability of military force to accomplish non-military goals.

Except that no one is saying that, other than McCain's bad joke (the first part is true enough, because the alternative is to say, “OK, let's talk even if you are building nukes”)

It's been what Bush, McCain, Lieberman, etc. have been saying for months now. It's also part and parcel of what you're calling the integration of soft and hard power.

Not at all surprising that when a strategy is implemented very poorly, you get poor results and that makes it very difficult to see whether or not the underlying concept was the correct one or not.

The underlying concept of what? Forcing a democracy on Iraq with our military? There isn't a proper way to implement that kind of concept, leaving aside the various moral and legal arguments against doing so.

A lot of our treaties and alliances suggest otherwise.

I know of no treaty that allow us to wage wars of choice/preemption.

As far as having bases around the world being a waste, does that mean you think that we should severely contract the size of our forces, or just keep them here at home?

The size of our military and “defense” budget is indefensible in my opinion. It's not that I don't think we should have a military, but it's primary mission should be actual defense, not intervention or national building or occupation.

You mean like a surprising lack of knowledge of how countries might respond to presence of US military bases, like Kuwait, for example?

Come on, Kuwait is very different from Iraq. It doesn't have the internal strife, it's a fraction of the size, it's not full of religiously important sites. Iraq is a lot more like Saudi Arabia. We had to pull our bases out of there, remember?

So really, in both cases, the important thing is whether or not someone pursues a policy wisely, and in both cases when that fails, lives and peace are at risk. In neither case do I assume bad faith on the part of voters who align themselves with candidates on either side though; I assume that pacifists believe that those policies will work and that they truly don't see a great risk of backfiring, rather than believe that they 'hate America' or ridiculous things like that. I might, however, sincerely believe that they are wrong, just as they might obviously believe that I'm wrong about military force creating the leverage sometimes necessary to achieve peace and stability.

Funny how putting our troops in Iraq has created the opposite effect.

Not at all surprising that when a strategy is implemented very poorly, you get poor results and that makes it very difficult to see whether or not the underlying concept was the correct one or not.

As a final point, we have a right to defend ourselves but it is not our place to police the world.

A lot of our treaties and alliances suggest otherwise.

As far as having bases around the world being a waste, does that mean you think that we should severely contract the size of our forces, or just keep them here at home? Because the latter doesn't strike me as a terribly wise move (I don't see where it would save that much money and would certainly be a lot more costly and difficult to deploy if/when necessary.) The former is something I'd just have to COMPLETELY agree to disagree on- if you're that much in favor of a smaller military footprint then we'll never find any common ground on our viewpoints on this.

Wanting more troops and bases in a country filled with people that hate us, that are shooting at us everyday and that think we're infidels occupying their holy lands is a call for more war, or at the very least it betrays a surprising lack of knowledge about the Middle East on the part of McCain.

You mean like a surprising lack of knowledge of how countries might respond to presence of US military bases, like Kuwait, for example? Sure, the extremists use this as a rallying cry against us, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an equal or greater number of people in the Middle East who want us there or at least are completely acceptant of our presence.

again you show that you either disregard or don't understand the integration of hard and soft power that underlies most hawks' positions- the 'peace through strength meme

I understand the concept, but I don't see it being actually being practiced by our preeminent hawks like Bush and McCain. They refuse to actually engage in any diplomacy with our enemies beyond the threat of force. “Stop building nukes, then we'll talk, and if you don't, we'll blow you up.” That's not an integration of soft and hard power, it's belligerent arrogance.

Wanting more troops and more bases isn't a call for more war, it's a call for force which can maintain the peace through stability and protection of our own interests as well as that of our allies around the world.

Wanting more troops and bases in a country filled with people that hate us, that are shooting at us everyday and that think we're infidels occupying their holy lands is a call for more war, or at the very least it betrays a surprising lack of knowledge about the Middle East on the part of McCain.

You assume that having more troops stationed around the globe means that we'll fight more wars, and that's simply not the case.

It seems to be empirically true in our case.

In fact many of us believe that pulling back too much is what leads to extremists filling the power void, and eventually that erupts into violence.

Funny how putting our troops in Iraq has created the opposite effect.

Having military bases in stable parts of the world is a waste of manpower and money. Our bases in Germany, Italy and Japan serve no purpose. Do you honestly think those countries would be filled to the brim with “extremists” if we left?

And more to the point, having those bases in countries where we are not wanted, like Iraq, stimulates violence. Ultimately, they are counterproductive.

As a final point, we have a right to defend ourselves but it is not our place to police the world.

BTW, for a GREAT insight into this philosophy, I recommend the following speech by Robert Gates:
http://thecrossedpond.com/?p=2032

I don't see much evidence that McCain's philosophy varies much from this. If you do, you'll have to have something other than a joke made in poor taste to prove that he wants to start wars.

Well, the broader point there Chris is that it's wrong to impugn motives of anyone with hawkish tendencies as though that represents a desire (or even caprice toward) killing, just as it's wrong to say that anyone who opposes war is unpatriotic or siding with our enemies.

There are differences between those two charges. War invariably means killing. When your stance is always more war, more troops, more bases, etc, that means you accept there will be killing, unless you're incredibly naive. Like I said, it was wrong of me to say that McCain “wants” to kill Arabs, etc. However, I still maintain that he shows little or no concern over the deaths that will logically result from his wartime policies.

Opposing a war on the basis of a cost benefit analysis and/or moral principle has nothing to do with patriotism or loyalty.

From McCam to the NIE ireport n a few easy steps.