Earlier this week, an acquaintance of mine complained that,

"There is nothing inherently "conservative" about the war in Iraq, and nothing inherently objectionable to the idea that we should have a more humble, skeptical and cautious foreign policy. The way that Paul, Hagel, et al, have been virtually drummed out of polite Republican circles for arguing that we should be more cautious and skeptical is eternally frustrating to me. Even if I disagree with them, it's a valuable perspective - and, in the grand scheme of foreign policy, more often right than (wrong)."

The problem Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel have is not truly that they're disagreeing with most of their fellow Republicans, it's that they're disagreeable fellows who’ve adopted the offensive rhetoric of the Left as their own on foreign policy.

The people who back the war in Iraq -- which even included the majority of the Democrats in the Senate until the war became unpopular – aren’t doing so because they are malevolent people. People who support the war in Iraq (myself included) believe it's just and honorable, we believe that America is a decent country, and we hold the foreign policy views that we do because we think those policies are best for our nation.

If you rant about neocons maliciously tricking America into war and an American empire, excuse the terrorists for attacking us on 9/11, falsely accuse the President of lying to get us into war, and suggest impeaching Bush over a war that was initially even supported by the likes of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Chuck Hagel, you can't expect to be embraced by conservatives who agreed with Bush then, agree with him now, and think your arguments are insulting. Put another way, you can argue for a more "humble and skeptical" foreign policy without being a jerk about it -- and we definitely do need people to do just that.

Our current foreign policy, bizarrely, seems to be largely left over from the Cold War, which has been finished for more than 15 years. In addition, the Bush administration has introduced a mishmash of other policies designed to fight the war on terror, some of which are more effective than others.

Take Iraq, for example. We could have simply tried to replace Saddam with another strongman, one who would have been friendly to us, when things didn’t go as well as expected. But instead, we’ve done the honorable thing. We didn't cut and run when the going got tough and we have spent an enormous amount of blood and treasure to try to further democracy in that country. But, as we get to the point when the surge should be drawing to a close, it's time for the Iraqis to start shouldering most of the burden for defending their own nation.

At the close of America's Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin said that Americans have "A Republic, if you can keep it." Well, it's about time for us to say the same thing to the Iraqis.

That being said, we should still keep troops in that country to help them with logistics, air power, and to target Al-Qaeda, but we're very close to the time when the Iraqi forces should be the ones keeping order in the streets and when necessary, doing all the bleeding and dying to keep their country free while American troops move into support positions.

It can also be fairly argued that Americans are too involved in other parts of the world. We give away too much foreign aid to people who do nothing in return and don't appreciate what we give them. Take Afghanistan, for instance. We were the number one donor of food to that country when Al-Qaeda targeted us on 9/11. With that in mind, we should start examining every dime in foreign aid that we hand out to figure out what we get in return.

If we're giving a nation money, is it voting for us or against us at the UN? How does its population feel about us? What are they doing for us? How is giving them money furthering our interests? Granted, we can't always expect that we're going to get as much in return as we give out, but when we're running a large deficit and being vilified day in and day out across the world by nations that are holding their hands out and demanding favors, it's time to start asking some hard questions about foreign aid.

Then there are our foreign bases; how many of them do we need in a post-Cold War world? Certainly, we should be able to shut down some of them or replace them with bases run by skeleton crews in more strategic places that could be rapidly ramped up in a crisis. Moreover, with these bases, we need to remember that we're pumping massive amounts of American dollars into foreign economies, even though our troops aren't necessarily welcome in those nations, while we're simultaneously closing bases back home in the United States. If we have a choice between closing a base in a foreign country or one on our home soil, all other things being equal, Americans should want to see the foreign bases closed.

For example, consider the situation in South Korea. China is unlikely to invade at this point and South Korea is a bigger, richer, and more technologically advanced nation than North Korea, so they shouldn't need our help to defend their country in a conventional war. After we convince the Norks to get rid of their nukes, why should we continue to stay in South Korea when we're wildly unpopular with the younger generation there?

Moreover, why are we still backing Taiwan? How does that help us and what exactly has Taiwan done for us lately? Granted, if we were to cease doing so, they would probably quickly develop nuclear weapons to keep China at bay, but they’re unlikely to sell them or use them for aggressive purposes. So, perhaps we should consider giving them some forewarning and then part as friends. Continued...