Hopefully, it is a sign that pro-war conservatives and libertarians are beginning to rediscover the insights offered by the libertarian and classical liberal antiwar tradition (which many of them once advocated). It is especially a good time to gain a a renewed appreciation on how Hayek's insights about the"fatal conceit" and unintended consequences can be applied equally (if not more so) to social planning by the state in foreign policy via efforts such as nation building.

However, Levy's proposal to respond by sending even more troops strikes me as totally misguided and counterprouductive. It is akin to the common rationale put forward by defenders of the Great Society e.g."we would have won the war on poverty if we had spent more money."

Sometimes, it makes more sense to climb out of the hole rather than keep digging. If the current deployment of of 135K troops (which Levy deems to be inadequate) has only coincided with worsening problems in Iraq, it certainly does not follow that things will improve if we send even more troops. In fact, given the past record, it would be more plausible to conclude that a policy of throwing more money and troops at the problem will worsen the situation.

Isn't it, after all, a fundamental insight of libertarians on most issues that responding with more intervention to cure the mistakes caused by previous interventions will probably backfire?