While I have sympathy for some libertarian tendencies, on foreign policy alone I could never call myself Libertarian. John Stossel's view on fighting terrorism is Exhibit A.
I heard Stossel say--like countless leftists before him--that killing jihadis just creates a thousand more.
As if we could avoid Islamist terrorism if only we stopped angering them.
You have to ignore the fact that pretty much everything angers jihadis enough to kill and destroy.
Jihadis spend most of their time killing fellow Moslems whose differences with us pale in comparision to western differences.
In what alternate world of reality would our specific actions have any effect on jihadi hatred of us when Sunni jihadis hate other Sunni jihadis enought to battle them hammer and tong? And kill other Sunnis not Islamist enough? And slaughter Shias just for being the wrong type of Moslem?
Killing jihadis is not the only thing we need to do to end the threat of jihadi slaughter. As long as we aren't indiscriminantly killing Moslems as we seek to kill jihadis, killing jihadis is absolutely necessary.
Killing jihadis is important to keep them from killing us in the short run; and in the long run, important for helping non-nutball Moslems--who otherwise fear the jihadi nutballs--defeat jihadis and the appeal of jihad within their society.
As long as libertarians believe killing jihadis just creates a thousand more jihadis, I can't fully stand with them or trust them to govern our country.