The phrase encapsulates a viewpoint suggesting that political figures and ideological groups, specifically naming former President Trump, Senator Romney, and neoconservatives, achieved their desired foreign policy outcomes, particularly in the realm of military interventions and prolonged conflicts. The assertion implies that these actors either directly instigated, supported, or benefited from wars and sustained military engagements. An example would be criticisms leveled against neoconservative foreign policy during the Bush administration, alleging that their influence led to the Iraq War, a conflict that aligns with the concept embedded in the original phrase.
The importance of this perspective lies in its reflection of a critical assessment of foreign policy decision-making processes. It raises questions about the role of ideology, personal ambition, and political maneuvering in shaping military interventions. Understanding the historical context of such claims requires examining the specific policies and actions undertaken by the individuals and groups mentioned, as well as analyzing the consequences of those decisions on both domestic and international affairs. Benefits derived from analyzing this viewpoint include a more nuanced comprehension of the interplay between political objectives and military engagements, leading to a more informed public discourse on foreign policy.
