You might think that liberals and neocons don't have much in common, but episodes like the U.S. leaping into imposing a no-fly zone on Libya show just how much they are on the same page when it comes to foreign policy:
The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists is that the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see as constraints on U.S. power), and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American dominance. Both groups extol the virtues of democracy, both groups believe that U.S. power -- and especially its military power -- can be a highly effective tool of statecraft. Both groups are deeply alarmed at the prospect that WMD might be in the hands of anybody but the United States and its closest allies, and both groups think it is America's right and responsibility to fix lots of problems all over the world. Both groups consistently over-estimate how easy it will be to do this, however, which is why each has a propensity to get us involved in conflicts where our vital interests are not engaged and that end up costing a lot more than they initially expect.
The attitude of neocons and liberal interventionists may be different, but the policies they desire seem to be looking increasingly the same:
Most of the U.S. foreign policy establishment has become addicted to empire, it seems, and it doesn't really matter which party happens to be occupying Pennsylvania Avenue.
It's one thing to be sticking your nose into the rest of the world's affairs when it means helping other countries fix their problems with education, food, medical care, infrastructure, and so on. But when your foreign policy increasingly restricts itself to just one solution - military responses to just about every problem - there's no way liberals should be supporting that kind of expansive idealist interventionism.
But the real lesson is what it tells us about America's inability to resist the temptation to meddle with military power. Because the United States seems so much stronger than a country like Libya, well-intentioned liberal hawks can easily convince themselves that they can use the mailed fist at low cost and without onerous unintended consequences. When you have a big hammer the whole world looks like a nail; when you have thousand of cruise missiles and smart bombs and lots of B-2s and F-18s, the whole world looks like a target set.
Better to stay home than to find yourself on the same page with the likes of Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Hugh Hewitt, and all the other bloodthirsty fuckwits who beat the drum for more more more war. No matter what your reasons, no matter that you think that your reasons are more high-minded than theirs.