You have also offered a positive alternative: recognizing the necessity of a principled foreign policy of self-interest, one that requires bold action in the form of destroying proven enemies.

You have managed to do all of that without resorting to invective (”Idiots,” for example), a common weakness in public discussion today. Instead you speak respectfully to a thinking audience.

P. S. — I do have one question. You say: “But American leaders have earned a reputation for appeasement and a lack of moral courage.” Would you, or another commenter, explain what you mean by “moral courage”?

I assume it isn’t a contrast to “immoral courage,” which would be a contradiction in terms.

Does it instead mean the following? Courage not only in particular circumstances, such as rushing into a burning house to save one’s child, but the courage to act consistently and always on moral principle. In other words, courage in the realm of moral principles.

If that is the meaning, then there is a problem: Most politicians don’t have such principles of rational self-interest, and so the issue of having courage to follow them doesn’t arise. The problem isn’t courage but the lack of the principles to begin with.