Both the realists and the traditionalists reject the Bush Doctrine’s emphasis on expanding liberal democracy, mocking this enterprise as “muscular Wilsonianism.” But the expansion of like regimes can be found in Thucydides, who noted that an important goal of both Athens and Sparta was to establish and support regimes similar to their own, democracies in the case of Athens and oligarchies for Sparta.
Indeed, the Bush Doctrine endorses this very Thucydidean perspective. ~Mackubin Owens

Clark Stooksbury might have another nominee for his non sequitur competition–what possible relevance do the policies of Greek cities in the 5th century B.C. have for justifying neo-Wilsonian fantasies? And how did that policy work out for Athens and Sparta? Oh, there were some high times for Sparta (and also some colossal disasters for Athens), but in the end it meant the wreck of the Athenian regime and the effective subservience of Sparta to Persia. If they were at all relevant, it would be as a cautionary tale against doing anything similar. To compare current policy to that of the Greek cities in Thucydides is not to pay the administration any compliments, so why does Mr. Owens think he has made a compelling point here?

Incidentally, since when has Jimmy Carter ever been confused for a “traditionalist” (i.e., Buchananite or non-interventionist) in foreign policy? He is the man, as neocons never tire of mentioning as a way to evade their own part in the current debacle, who inaugurated our policy of reserving the right to intervene in the Middle East to “protect” oil reserves. The “traditionalist” school, if so it may be called, has been notable for eschewing intervention for this or most other reasons. (Mr. Owens also misunderstands Prof. Bacevich, who I believe considers himself to be a foreign policy realist.) There are undoubtedly more things to say about this article, but the problems are many and there are only so many hours in the day.