We're not hearing much from Tea Party candidates in this election about the war. But most of them clearly have a more libertarian, anti-interventionist take, as shown below. If a good number of them are elected, as is predicted, their positions could have a profound impact on what goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan - and on the military in general - in the coming years.
Colorado Republican Senate Nominee Republican challenger Ken Buck is reluctant to support any American military intervention in foreign countries. According to the Colorado Statesman, Buck recently said, "We can't nation build in Afghanistan, the way we did with the Marshall Plan in Germany. I think we have been there far too long. I think we have to give our troops an exit strategy, and get out of there when we can.'
John Raese, the Republican candidate for Senate in West Virginia, recently told realclearpolitics.com, 'If you study Great Britain, which was one of the greatest countries in the world for a long time, they lost most of their monetary - most of their superpower - because they kept chasing things throughout the world. I think we have to take care of our nation, and we have to make our nation strong, and you build that nation from within.'
Kentucky Senate nominee Rand Paul hasn't talked about the war much, either, but he's said enough about his opposition to interventionism and nation building that Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani endorsed his opponent in the Kentucky GOP primary.
Alaska GOP nominee Joe Miller initially supported the Iraq war, but when asked by realclearpolitics.com about his take on foreign policy, he said, "It can't be sidelined by unwinnable objectives or things that really don't fall within our national interests, and so I think that's going to require perhaps a refocus."