Justin Raimondo

March 10, 2008

I can see why a paleocon would not be predisposed to support Barack Obama, but, really, Daniel Larison’s remark that “I think a case can be made that a successful extrication from Iraq by Obama will open the floodgates for many more interventions, and costly ones at that” is … baffling.

What, exactly, does this mean: that opponents of our interventionist foreign policy should oppose Obama precisely because he wants us out of Iraq? Or is it that he doesn’t really want to pull out, but is just using this as a rhetorical device (the Ron Paul position) to fool his followers?

And what, pray tell, would be more costly than invading Iraq and attempting a “democratic transformation” of the Middle East? Perhaps invading, say, China, or Russia—but that’s about it.