Maybe Maverick doesn’t want the aggravation of battling, and losing to, isolationists on the Senate floor. With McCain, though, I think he’d consider it his duty to stay and fight for interventionism, especially if the odds of Paul winning the nomination increase. He’d probably relish the opportunity to lead a band of hawks against the new semi-isolationist establishment, especially if President Rand is at the head of it.
This is the sort of idiotic thinking – and muddled re-definition of language itself – that marks the biggest problems with the “U.S. World Policeman” view of American military obligations.
“Isolation” does not mean a refusal to wage war anywhere and anytime at the drop of a hat, under the phony rubric of “good works” or “moral interventions” (at the point of a gun). Are we “isolated” from India or China simply because we are not waging war against them?
We are commercially and diplomatically engaged with almost every part of the world. Does this mean we exist in isolation from those parts, then?
Allahpundit actually knows better. I have no idea why he spouts the sort of drivel he does here. Pushing the idea that military engagement is a requirement to avoid our being isolated is bullshit, and he knows it.
So what is he really trying to push here?