Somehow I don’t think foreign invaders would fare very well here, and the only intimidation they could accomplish would be from dependencies our own vices have created.

Shining cities on hills have no need to send forth troops or missiles.

Your qualifier was “given the real alternatives.” What counts as a real alternative? If we limit our “real alternatives” to the two main failed groups, it is probably true that Hamiltonians are relatively better than Wilsonians, but that doesn’t say much at all. This isn’t like the two-party system where we have to settle for the existing options because of the structure of our electoral system.

*Many* of them opposed it? Who? I assume we’re talking about public opposition. Having reservations and staying quiet do not count as opposition in my book. I can think of Scowcroft, Mearsheimer and Walt when I think of establishment realist internationalists who spoke out publicly against the invasion. I will grant there are probably a few others who do not come to mind, but there were not many. Give me some additional examples, preferably from the right if you can.

Realist internationalists go with establishment CW more than just about any other group. Now that most people agree that Iraq was a mistake, they have come to endorse that view. Many of these realists seem to be “chastened” by events in much the same way they were persuaded to stay silent before the invasion.

I’m probably picking nits here, but that assumption, which does indeed exist, and deserves all of the scorn that you heap upon it, isn’t present in this particular post from Ross. Based upon prior posts from Ross he probably does share that assumption, but it wasn’t in that particular post.

“Why do the Hamiltonians “represent probably our best hope for a relatively restrained foriegn policy”? ”

Well, you left out my qualifiers. I’m assuming (as does Ross, and as do you) that in the short to medium term abandoning our quasi-imperial role is (sadly) a non-starter. With that in mind, the realists (ultimately I agree that Hamiltonians is an unfortunate term) are our best option because (1) many of them did indeed oppose our intervention in Iraq, albeit not as forcefully as one would have liked to hope, and (2) they do seem more chastened by events than the other factions in our current foriegn policy consensus.

You make my point about the Jacksonians–they go along with interventions that other people propose. There weren’t too many people marching in the streets demanding an invasion of Iraq, or the bombing of Yugoslavia, but they fell behind it when it happened. They contribute to the problems we have with our foreign policy, but they do not create them. Ross presents them as something like wild jingoists who need to be controlled and directed, but they are not the ones constantly demanding intervention overseas.

Why do the Hamiltonians “represent probably our best hope for a relatively restrained foriegn policy”? Scowcroft and Hagel, to name two, both supported bombing Yugoslavia (Scowcroft was seriously talking about introducing ground forces at one time!), and obviously Hagel and Lugar went along with the war in Iraq. Hagel foresaw many of the potential problems but went along anyway–doesn’t that make the Hamiltonians even less desirable than the Jacksonians? If they are so capable of restraint, why do they never show restraint when it matters?

What Ross said was “Nor do I think that a Jeffersonian-Jacksonian “coalition of the introverts” could govern the nation responsibly unless the United States actually withdrew from its current quasi-imperial role, which almost certainly isn’t going to happen.” Stated that way, with the qualifier, he is probably right. Of course, many of us would say that the U.S. and the world would be better off if we did withdraw from our quasi-imperial role, but that’s where the dispute lies.

As for the Jacksonians … historically they have been perfectly happy to support the most disastrous interventions abroad. While no worse in that regard than the Wilsonians and the Hamiltonians, they have been no better either.

People like us won’t be happy with any of the “respectable” foriegn policy paradigms. Despite past examples where the Hamiltonians did indeed go along with some of the most ill conceived interventions, given the real alternatives, they represent probably our best hope for a relatively restrained foriegn policy – in the short to medium term at least.