The US is too big a nation, with too many factions involved, to have a coherent foreign policy no matter which party is in charge.
That is true, but is a poor excuse for any particular President or Senate.
The Mideast there has always been a conflicted foreign policy, as every government seeks to suck up to Israel (for the Jewish lobby) and to the Saudi leaders (who are allies of Big Oil).
Don't forget the Christians , who have a very pro Israeli faction.
The US will never have a foreign policy that is truly coherent, no matter which party is in charge.
Not Madison ,T. Roosevelt or F. Roosevelt?
The best policy is to oppose eternal war which is what the military industrial complex wants, so they can sell and export weapons, because fewer Americans are killed, maimed and driven insane that way.
I resemble that remark, most of my career has been devoted to the strength of the USA, and I am not apologizing. The stronger we are , the fewer times we will have wars and the shorter they will be. Unless loosing them sooner is considered an option? The number and kind of wars we have is dependent on political decisions in our leadership and in the leadership of potential enemies, not at the level of generals or their industrial suppliers.
I vote not to make ourselves so weak that the entire decision of whether or not to fight shall be in the hands of our attackers, rather to make ourselves so strong that most potential attackers smart enough to fight us are also smart enough to see the bad bet that fighting us represents. That would be half the problem.
The other half of the problem would be ourselves , and electing leadership that has enough wisdom to know the difference between restraint and weakness, so that weakness is not considered a good substitute for restraint.
Wise leaders fight when there is a real need , and not more and not less.
