This is the logical extension of the split between “neocons” and those on the right whose view of the Muslim world is so dim that they see no hope for improvement:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=199051.0
Bush/McCain style foreign policy is militaristic, sure, but it’s couched in optimistic terms about improving the Muslim world. They think you can use the US military to force political solutions among various factions in the Muslim world, and impose democracy, or at least impose some kind of minimally liberal society.
But on the other side, and arguably “farther to the right” of them, you’ve got folks like Frank Gaffney, who are sufficiently Islamophobic that they see no prospects for improvement in the Muslim world. From their perspective, any kind of strongman who is willing to play ball at all is probably better than the uncertainty that you’d get from Arab Spring-like revolutions. The populations of those countries can’t actually be trusted to govern themselves, so better the strongman.
Which means that that camp is more “dovish” than the neocon wing, at least in certain situations. And I think that’s where a large fraction of GOP primary voters are, and that’s what Trump and Carson are tapping into.
The same dichotomy exists in the European right as well - UKIP and FN tend to look down on Middle Eatern Wars.
I think there was recent polling suggesting most Americans think the country should have never got to war in Afghanistan, so Trump et Carson are not expousing a fringe position.
