Projecting Strength

"It's the old Potomac two-step, Jack."
--President Bennett (Clear and Present Danger)

Related to escalating Iran nuclear activity, I heard a conservative talking head criticize President Obama for not 'projecting strength' w.r.t. the U.S. position. The idea of projecting strength is typical hawkish rhetoric. The hawks view such an approach as necessary to US security. Such strength is commonly 'projected' by proactive US military interference into the sovereign affairs of others.

Even if we did have the financial resources to undertake such campaigns (which we don't), the entire idea of maintaining a standing army with primary operations on the soil of other sovereign nations is wrongheaded.

Assume I had someone living in my neighborhood who didn't like me and told me so. Subsequently, I learn that this individual has bought a gun and has been practicing at the target range. Thru my eyes, this person looks like a threat.

But I have no right to take the law into my own hands and pre-empt what I perceive as a hostile threat by taking that person's gun away or otherwise intervening in his/her affairs. Individuals are free to live their lives unless they violate the rights of others.

What I can do is get my own house in order. I am conscious of my surroundings, and I make sure that I can defend myself in case my rights are being violated. But I live my own life.

While this approach may be seen as 'weak' in the eyes of some, it enables living in a free manner rather than living under the influence of others.

Our nation was built on liberty. How is interfering with the sovereign rights of others consistent with that?