Danielle Pletka and Thomas Donnelly offer an unconvincing defense of their article. Elbridge Colby doesn't think Pletka and Donnelly's approach to military spending can be considered conservative:

Of course there is no single "conservative" foreign and defense policy. But there are certain fundamentals of a conservative approach, fundamentals consistent with a conservative approach to domestic policy or the law or social life. Condensed, the conservative approach is animated by a deep sensibility for and humility in the face of the limits of what can be achieved by government and other organs of social rationality; by the central importance -- but difficulty -- of preserving and advancing liberty, order, prosperity, and good values in a complex and imperfect world; by an awareness of the often unpredictable dangers of excessive ambition; and by a profound sense that government is the servant of the people's interests, and thus should never risk its citizens' lives or resources lightly.

The Pletka and Donnelly article does not stem from these principles.

Which is why neoconservatism is now and long has been an oxymoron. And why it has failed so spectacularly. Most violent leftist utopianisms do.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.