In the case of South Korea we have learned over and over again that the North will roll into Seoul as soon as they think the coast is clear. I think it’s safe to assume that Afghanistan would descend into chaos if we were to leave this early. Iraq is nowhere near stable yet.

I’m all about the idea of having no foreign entaglements, but we’re already entangled. Republicans like to write libertarians off as being too idealistic, and I’m afraid they are right when it comes to the extreme isolationism. We have to finish what we started, or find some other country to pick up where we leave off.

It’s difficult to reconcile libertarian principles of a limited federal government with “provide for the common defence” if the latter means keeping tens of thousands of troops in countries decades after conflicts have ended.

I think that’s Radley’s point. It may be wise to keep troops in Iraq now that we’re over there, but I think Radley’s mad about (1) the federal government going there in the first place in light of “provide for the common defence,” and (2) the constant truth that once the federal government expands in any area, it is unlikely to ever shrink back (think NATO), even if the reason for the expansion has since disappeared.

At least I think that’s what Radley’s getting at, and I agree with him.