I realize Donald Trump says some silly things about foreign policy from time to time. But I tend not to judge him as harshly as do my fellow members of the media.

Many politicians talk to us only in sound bites - if they talk to us at all.

The Donald talks to the media all the time. And if you're on the air for an hour or so a day then you're going to say a few things that sound dumb.

When Trump does, everyone in the media parrots the alleged error.

Fair enough. But he sounds positively sane compared to many of the people who criticize him.

I'm talking about all of the "neo" conservative military "experts" who have gotten everything wrong since 9/11.

Whenever you hear the term "military expert" you should be instantly skeptical.

As Clausewitz wrote, war is just "the continuation of politics by other means."

Or in other words, it's important to know, for example, how best to use infantry in combination with tanks. But that knowledge is useless if you don't know your political goal and how to achieve it - like every neocon military "expert" since 9/11.

In every conflict we had the ability to gain total military victory. But that doesn't mean much if you haven't thought through what you do after victory. Or as Clausewitz put it:

"No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it."

That's what the "neo" conservatives did. And it's not surprising that many have said they will vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump if it comes to that.

Of course they will. They're liberal internationalists and so is she.

Clinton supported the failed Iraq War as a senator and then helped start two more failed wars as secretary of state, one in Libya and one in Syria.

Meanwhile Trump has decisively rejected that failed foreign policy approach.

Whenever you hear someone say Trump knows nothing about foreign policy consider that the quote usually comes from someone who has been proven to know less.

Among the worst is Max Boot.

Look at Boot's recent attack on Trump in the pages of Commentary.

He calls Trump "the most radical and most ignorant major-party presidential candidate in our history."

Radical? Ignorant?

Boot has pretty much cornered that market.

Here's an excerpt from a column Boot wrote in the run-up to the Iraq War (my italics):

"Once Afghanistan has been dealt with, the US should turn its attention to Iraq. It will probably not be possible to remove Hussein quickly without a US invasion and occupation -- though it will hardly require half a million men, since Hussein's army is much diminished since the Gulf War, and the US will probably have plenty of help from Iraqis, once they trust that it intends to finish the job this time. Once Hussein is deposed, an American-led, international regency in Baghdad, to go along with the one in Kabul, should be imposed."

A "regency?"

Could someone tell this guy we're not Great Britain and this is not the 19th century?

Why would anyone assume the Iraqis would be glad to have us Americans running their country? We certainly wouldn't tolerate having them run our country.

That point was lost on Boot:

"Unlike with 19th-century European colonialists, U.S. rule should not be imposed permanently. Instead, as in West Germany, Italy and Japan, occupation would be a temporary expedient to allow the people to get back on their feet until a responsible, humane, preferably democratic government takes over," he wrote.

More than 13 years have passed since he wrote that and that responsible, humane government has yet to materialize. ISIS has, however.

But being a neocon means never having to say you're sorry. I've never heard one admit he was wrong yet. They just change their line. Listen to what Boot said in 2012:

"Obviously, the George W. Bush administration should have listened more carefully to skeptics inside and outside government before the invasion of Iraq - even though senior military leaders signed off on every bad decision."

Yes, obviously they should have ignored Boot and listened to a traditional conservative like Pat Buchanan, who predicted disaster in Iraq.

As for Trump, I can't find any interviews before the invasion in which he predicted disaster. But he did predict as early as June of 2004 that the American effort at nation-building would fail, while Boot and the neocons were still hailing that "mission accomplished.".

So who's the nutty one here?

Like the other neocon "experts," Boot got every major prediction wrong. If you doubt that read this post I penned in 2014 in which I recounted Boot's failed prescriptions and predictions.

Here's a good one from the Neocon Bible, the Weekly Standard, in 2011:

"Isn't the use of force legitimate to overthrow a regime that has time and again shown its willingness to slaughter civilians in the street? It certainly was in Libya. Why not in Syria?"

Or in other words, we screwed up Libya. Why not screw up Syria as well?

Boot's still doing his best to accomplish that. Instead of admitting the course of action he advocated led directly to the rise of ISIS, he's still calling for the U.S. to attack ISIS's worst enemy, Syrian leader Bashar Assad.

In fact as late as last year Boot was still peddling that line. At a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations, Boot was asked "Why is it that we have to get rid of Assad to get rid of ISIS?"

Read his answer and ask yourself what reaction Donald Trump would get for saying something this stupid:

"Well it's because of this. Well, A, as I said, I don't think that defeating ISIS should be our only objective. We need to defeat Iran as well, and Assad is a pawn of Iran. But also, the -- the point that I made earlier, there is a dynamic where the more that Iranian-backed Shiite extremists are seen to be in control of these countries, the more that Sunnis will flock to groups like ISIS."

I challenge anyone to find a Trump statement quite that clueless.

I like to get my advice from real experts, hardened Vietnam vets like Pat Lang and Andrew Bacevich. Here's what Bacevich told me about Boot and his fellow neocons:

"Broadly speaking, the neocons like Boot purport to believe the application of American hard power in the Islamic world promotes stability, promotes democracy and wins friends for the American," he said. "But there is no evidence to support those positions and an abundance of evidence to support the opposite."

Unlike the hard-nosed traditional conservative view of foreign policy, the "neo" conservative view is not based on rational thought, he said,

"It's a belief system based on faith," he said. "As with any faith,

you accept the evidence that supports your preconceived belief and ignore the evidence that doesn't."

I prefer real military experts like Pat Lang, a former Vietnam Green Beret who spent years advising on military matters in the Mideast.

Go to Pat's Sic Semper Tyrannis site and the first post you will see is an in-depth analysis of a photo from Yemen with concrete details on that largely unreported fiasco.

"I find this picture featured on the South Front site to be intriguing. Where is this place? It is undoubtedly northern Yemen. The fat slob in a futa (sarong), the dazed young'un with a cheek full of qat, the general scruffiness of the scene all point to that. But there are interesting features to the photo. That tan colored vehicle seems to me to be an armored G model Mercedes."

That's military expertise, boys and girls. Pat's been to Yemen and is concerned with Saudi Arabia's attacks on the civilians there - all supported by the neocons, of course.

And then read his post on the media's tactics with Trump (of whom he is not a fan either):

"A couple of nights ago Bully Badger Chris Matthews raged on against Donald Trump (another ass) for an hour in a staccato stream of questions doubtless intended to elicit some sort of politically embarrassing response that could then become the meme in yet another MSM attempt to destroy Trump."

As I said, Trump certainly says some silly things about foreign policy. But once you get over that, take a look at what his critics have said.

They're the ones who got us into this mess.

As to how we get out, Trump's got as good an idea as Hillary Clinton.

Actually, much better. She backed all the same blunders that Boot did.

So when it comes to a Trump-Clinton race, expect the neocons to back Clinton.

Just don't expect them to apologize for their mistakes.

COMMENTS: I realize most people do not care about the details of foreign policy or the debate between us traditional conservatives and the so-called "neo" conservatives on the disastrous turn our foreign policy has taken.

If you are interested in that, please read the links to the various "When You're Right, You're Right" collections to learn the views of the true military experts who have over the years been quoted in my columns. They're the guys who got it right.