While I was too young to vote during the W. Bush presidency, I still was far too blind to the fact that having a America as the world police has very little to do with most other right wing politics. The biggest part of the deception was the premise that "we have to get them there before they attack us here!"
Given all the warranted doubt that comes with the whole 9/11 narrative, we should be more prepared to question why we ever have had military intervention in so many countries.
I have a theory that much of the intervention taking place during the W. Bush years and beyond were just a carryover for our military policy from the Cold War years. With the Cold War being over by the 90s, we still had quite a hefty military and less apparent justification for the spending and size of military.
So, given what we know about institutions, would we expect those working in the military and those who profit from having a large military to just allow the military to shrink?
The way I see it, the War on Terror and other operations were just another justification to keep the money flowing. After all, you cannot justify keeping much of the military around without any wars to fight.
Thus, we had the premise that we needed to preemptively put down any threats from around the world before they came to our doorstep. And any opposition to this premise was considered unpatriotic. And as we know, the American right prided themselves as patriotic.
But as our military has been overtaken by progressive politics and is enforcing policies worldwide that are the antithesis of American rightwing politics (e.g. homosexuality being legalized and feminist policies), it should be a far easier case for the American right to unpair themselves from supporting an interventionist doctrine.
For many on the right, this has become the case.
The most important aspect of policies are those that affect you directly and the evaluation of how much it costs to enact those policies. When it comes to a strong military intervention, can we really make a right wing case for them benefitting us when we are using it to fight people who are not really much of a threat to us? Because all we have to show for most interventionist policies are a huge bill to pay.
And even worse, we are exporting some of the worst politics on the world and making the many countries genuinely hate us. Why should we care if some Middle East or African countries say no to feminism and homosexuality? They are not our countries, so we should not be telling them what to do.
I also doubt that countries like Japan and Taiwan geniunely embrace homosexual politics, but thanks to the US influence, they are allowing that shit to take place.
@houseoftolstoy
The answer is quite simple to that question: if africa and the middle east don't fully embrace feminism and faggotry, it gives normal smart people a country to escape communism and most important, their positive fertility rate means they will complete conquer the world in a few generations.
Though we still have supposed "conservatives" such as Bill Kristol who have exposed themselves as only being "conservative" in having a huge military that intervenes in other countries. In a way, Donald Trump exposed the farce of the neocons ever being conservative or right wing. Not because Trump was a great example of conservatism, but the fact that when he disrupted the status quo, the neocons exposed themselves as having no geniune right wing values.