DeSantis’ dissent-that-isn’t-really-dissent on Ukraine has brought out the hawkish ideological enforcers like almost nothing else in the last few years.
"Attacking DeSantis for 'isolationism' that he clearly doesn’t support is intended to force him back into line..." sums the pile-on up well. And we will find, DeSantis's ambition will capitulate even on mild pushback on Ukraine soon enough.
TL:DR: Boot never met a war he didn't like. If Ukraine is so vital to US interests (which ones?) then he can go himself.
Meanwhile, the author is correct in that DeSantis is being pilloried for not being hawkish enough, as though the only choices on offer were "hot war with nuclear armed Russia and China" and "hot war with nuclear armed Russia with hot war with nuclear armed China to follow just as soon as the radioactive ash cools off a bit" were the only possible choices on offer. This false dilemma is a favorite tactic of the manipulative and intellectually dishonest.
I agree with your denunciation of the Max Boots of the world, who are clearly terrified of being stuck with a 'Trump II" in the White House, but ignoring DeSantis' characterization of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and explicit goal of reincorporating it into a new Russian empire, as a "territorial dispute", goes too far. Calling Donald Trump a "militarist"goes too far as well. He loved spending money on the military, and would have had ridiculous, Napoleonic parades celebrating himself if the Pentagon would have let him, but he entirely lacks the hawkish compulsion to project American military power around the world. He was quite willing to make peace with any country that would buy lots of American goods. He was much less of an interventionist than Obama or Hillary Clinton, which contributed significantly to his victory. While he sided ostentatiously with Israel and Saudi Arabia, he had no real interest in foreign affairs. He ran for president on domestic rather than foreign policy issues, which is why so many of the foreign policy "experts" departed the party immediately after he took control of it. He was embraced by much of the "establishment right"--the National Review folks--because he could win and could protect them from the libs. But his reorientation of the Republican Party away from its previous concentration/obsession with foreign "danger" explains why the Max Boots of the world hate him so much. (The Max Boots and Jennifer Rubins of the world also got tired of pretending that they hated gays and opposed abortion.)
"Attacking DeSantis for 'isolationism' that he clearly doesn’t support is intended to force him back into line..." sums the pile-on up well. And we will find, DeSantis's ambition will capitulate even on mild pushback on Ukraine soon enough.
TL:DR: Boot never met a war he didn't like. If Ukraine is so vital to US interests (which ones?) then he can go himself.
Meanwhile, the author is correct in that DeSantis is being pilloried for not being hawkish enough, as though the only choices on offer were "hot war with nuclear armed Russia and China" and "hot war with nuclear armed Russia with hot war with nuclear armed China to follow just as soon as the radioactive ash cools off a bit" were the only possible choices on offer. This false dilemma is a favorite tactic of the manipulative and intellectually dishonest.
I agree with your denunciation of the Max Boots of the world, who are clearly terrified of being stuck with a 'Trump II" in the White House, but ignoring DeSantis' characterization of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and explicit goal of reincorporating it into a new Russian empire, as a "territorial dispute", goes too far. Calling Donald Trump a "militarist"goes too far as well. He loved spending money on the military, and would have had ridiculous, Napoleonic parades celebrating himself if the Pentagon would have let him, but he entirely lacks the hawkish compulsion to project American military power around the world. He was quite willing to make peace with any country that would buy lots of American goods. He was much less of an interventionist than Obama or Hillary Clinton, which contributed significantly to his victory. While he sided ostentatiously with Israel and Saudi Arabia, he had no real interest in foreign affairs. He ran for president on domestic rather than foreign policy issues, which is why so many of the foreign policy "experts" departed the party immediately after he took control of it. He was embraced by much of the "establishment right"--the National Review folks--because he could win and could protect them from the libs. But his reorientation of the Republican Party away from its previous concentration/obsession with foreign "danger" explains why the Max Boots of the world hate him so much. (The Max Boots and Jennifer Rubins of the world also got tired of pretending that they hated gays and opposed abortion.)