BofH--
In a nutshell,
- You are using a historical argument to support a policy preference without
- doing your due diligence to see if that historical argument is sustainable, or
- testing the feasibility of that policy preference given the current state of affairs.
- By not performing either of the previous two steps, you are, in fact, "trying to revise and/or create something that isn't." (Specifically, you're calling for a foreign policy centered around geostrategic interests at the expense of American values.)
- You use terms ("containment," "sphere of influence," "proxy wars," "stabbing in the back") that are charged with meaning and that have sparked vigorous debate without displaying a familiarity with the terms nor with the broader debates.
- You use qualifiers that allow you to phrase your viewpoints provisionally. This practice enables you to side step the responsibility for doing your due diligence. For example, you say "There may be many reasons, good and faulty, for the invasion of Iraq[.]" Yet, you give little indication that you know the arguments for and against the invasion of Iraq even though that topic and broader issues related to it have been discussed at great length on this BB.
To be clear, I am not saying one needs to be a SME to have policy preferences. Nor does one have to know the cutting edge of historical inquiry to offer interpretations of the past. Nor does one need to quote sources chapter and verse to demonstrate due diligence. However, I do think this country is paying an increasingly high price for the growing habit of citizens to say "This is the way it should be!" based off of what they read in the blogosphere.