I can't tell you how diappointed I am in Marco Rubio's emergence as a John McCain/Lindsay Graham hawk. Rubio has more potential than anyone in the Senate but I can't support his foreign policy positions. Rubio can't say that America shouldn't interfere everywhere in the world then support our continued presence in Afghanistan and Iraq and our bombing in Libya. He's delusional if he thinks we can turn Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya into stable democracies which are anything different than "democratic" dressing for tyranny.
Rubio is right that America can have an influence in the world, but our military influence has been wrong-headed since WWI. I also want to be part of an exceptional America, but one that trades peacefully in economic freedom and becomes the model of non-intervention. It's past time to get over the idea of a void in the world if we don't send our military here and there overseas. We're all connected and space is not an issue. We can have all our troops home and still have a response plan to any emergency -- and we can also have international agreements that Europe and Asia will now defend themselves. We're not living in the Russian Bear world when military might was the macho thing -- it turns out that Stalin and subsequent leaders never had any real intentions of world dominance, just eastern Europe and a little here and there in other places, but they saw us as controlling the rest of the world, and in many ways we have -- now it's about economic freedom and efficiency. The best trader wins -- the most ballistic countries lose. Yes, there are still dangerous nations, and we should have the best intelligence and military possible, and we should stop any attack that threatens America, but we have to end futile and wasteful long-term engagements like Afghanistan and Iraq, and senseless "kinetic military action" like in Libya. Rubio should use his great mind to innovate in foreign relations, not follow the failed interventions of the past.