- The text is here (he gave it at the Center for the National Interest, an old Nixon project)
- Maggie Haberman gives a us a glimpse of how the Beltway views it
- Zach Beauchamp gives us a taste of how the wonky Left views it
- The libertarian view is served up by Conor Friedersdorf
- Daniel Larison, PhD historian, reps the conservative view
I already know what the neoconservatives are going to say. Same goes with those on the socialist Left. I think everybody knows what they are going to say and that, in a nutshell, explains why the neoconservatives are becoming as marginal in contemporary debates as the socialists.
Notes On Liberty 
Oddly enough I mostly agree with what he had to say. I do have two questions. The first one is snark, the second is not.
“America should and will fight wars when the consequences….intended and unintended….are worth the sacrifice.”
Do libertarians have a special insight that allows them to foresee unintended consequences?
What is Rand Paul’s position regarding Obama and US involvement in Libya? The teapublican wing is comfortable in their insanity and simultaneously claim that the administration is namby-pamby-no-backbone-wimps and a democracy-threatening-dictatorship. Thus Obama-the-dictator forced us into a war and Obama-the-wimp ‘led from behind’, showed no ‘leadership’ and got bullied by the Europeans in NATO.
Oooo, that is snarky. When it comes to US foreign policy over the last half century we do. Here is the gist of it: Military intervention will go badly. It will make everybody worse off. A military is supposed to be for fighting against another military. Using it for any other purpose will lead to failure. US elites have been using it for other things. The failures are thus predictable, and their hoped-for results will not come to pass.
Good question. Paul actually spoke about Libya a lot. He labelled it an utter and complete failure (intervention created a “jihadist wonderland”) and chastised the GOP and Clinton for the hypocrisy you so ably point out.