I don’t often agree with Mark Levin, but this, from The Corner, is correct, in my opinion:
As for nation-building, there are times to be for it and times to be against it. The Marshall Plan was all about nation-building, but not in the abstract. If it serves American national-security interests, and can be coherently justified as such, then it’s prudent. Nation-building in, say, Haiti, would be ridiculous. The general test is whether doing so helps protect our country. To have a doctrinaire objection to it under all circumstances would be imprudent.
Thoughts from the penut gallery?
Advertisement
Well I often do agree with Levin, and so in this case all three of us are in agreement. I think this hits upon a broader subject: doctrinaire ideological thinking. My main beef with the paleocons is that they take the “no nation building at any time” line. Furthermore, they seem to have a very singular approach to foreign policy – a one-size fits all way of thinking that is not practical in the real world.
Agreed on the doctrinaire thinking gripe. Principals are good and often encouraged, but rigid ideological adherence to positions more often than not ends in short-sighted policy solutions that serve no one’s interests. Probably why neither of us could ever be elected to office, we see, and often revel in, the many nuances of the issues.