John Bolton's Neoconservative Folly

We have essentially no problem with the following quote:

Unfortunately, its author, former UN Ambassador, John Bolton, does. Mr Bolton goes onto say that the present administration is not conservative because it is taking the wrong course of action around the globe. The problem is, the most "hard-headed assessment of U.S. national interests" is that, the USA should not be involved around the globe at all.

Mr Bolton condemns "The recalcitrant and unyielding regime in North Korea", but, our question is, why should the United States be concerned with North Korea? South Korea is an economic rival to the USA and the most "hard-headed assessment of U.S. national interest" should be that if North Korea and South Korea destroy each other in a war, then, the United States would benefit from the elimination of a trade rival in Korea, and the confusion a massive refugee crisis would cause China, our largest rival.

Mr Bolton finds it impossible to not mention Iran, of course, that, "Iran's persistence in pursuing precisely the same weapons programs", but again we must ask, why should the USA be concerned with Iran? Perhaps, the most "hard-headed assessment of U.S. national interest", should be to let the middle east spiral out of control, not continue to pursue a sentimental foreign policy of disarmament and democratization. After all, if the middle east destroys itself in a nuclear war, as a nuclear assault on Israel would surely draw a brutal response,then, wouldn't that eliminate any imagined threat from radical Islam? Wouldn't a nuclear Iran force a recalcitrant Europe to pay for its own defense, thus undermining their ability to subsidize their economies at our disadvantage?

Mr Bolton raises the spectre of Hamas, "Hamas' continued refusal to renounce terrorism, acknowledge the state of Israel's existence and abide by prior Middle East agreements", but again we have to ask, what "hard-headed assessment of U.S. national interest" is there, in involving ourselves in a conflict between Hamas and Israel? Where is the profit to the United States of even assuming the hopeless role of broker in the middle east? The defense of Israel is idealistic.

Finally, what neo-conservative diatribe would be complete without a condemnation of Russia. "Russia's continued belligerent attitude toward former territories of the Soviet Union", notes Mr. Bolton, is something we Americans should be gravely concerned about. Why? What "hard-headed assessment of U.S. national interest" demands that the United States place its cities upon the nuclear firing line to stand for the likes of Georgia formerly SSR? There's no net strategic gain, and the downsides, should something go badly, are enormous.

There is no real difference between the souls of the foreign policy of Barrack Obama and George W Bush. Both administrations espouse the luxurious and sentimental vision of world affairs, differing in perhaps color but sharing in common a sadly lacking appreciation of advancing American interests. No foreign policy of any recent US administration has advanced America in such a way that the people of our country can see a noticable improvement in their standard of living.

We live in a day and age where wars are too enormously expensive to be profitable. Before we Americans are goaded to rush to every trouble spot, we should remind ourselves that the USA has ignored countless wars in Africa and Latin America with no ill effect.

The most profitable foreign policy for the USA is to let other nations foot the bill by fighting them. If those nations should remove themselves as rivals to American commercial interests, then, isn't that the most "hard-headed" thing America could do?