It looks obvious

As I highly skeptic about the wisdom of government’s increasing involvement in domestic issues, I’m confident that the attempt to regulate in similar fashion other countries affairs carries no greater wisdom . Moreover, the idea - that it is the US best interest to maintain its superpower position, mostly by increasing involvement in alliances and local conflicts - is proven time after time as wrong. While I don’t think that pure isolationism is practical, or morally right, I’m great admirer of the practical strategy of Eisenhower.

Therefore when I enjoyed agreeing with this opinion column:

Trying to hold a country the size of Iraq in the middle of a civil war with 160,000 troops would have seemed to him absurd. If you need to use force, you should have enough of it to do the job quickly and completely. Then get the troops home and leave the rest to the politicians and diplomats. That was the American way of war, as Ike and Grant saw it.

Ike was shrewd enough to avoid getting entangled in France’s war in Indochina. "No one," he said, "could be more opposed to ever getting the United States involved in a hot war in that region than I am." As for the Middle East, Ike offered prescient words: the United States had no business transforming itself into "an occupying power in a seething Arab world," and if it ever did so, "I am sure we would regret it."

There is a reason why Americans "liked Ike." As one of America’s greatest generals, he delivered some of the nation’s most crucial military victories. Then as president, he delivered, among other benefits, eight years of peace. (The second volume of his presidential memoirs is titled "Waging Peace.") No man elected president, except perhaps Grant, knew better how to wage war — or understood the basic common sense of never getting into a fight you can’t win, or getting into one you can’t get out of.

Unfortunately I don’t think that neither of front runner is going to follow Ike’s example.