Chris Berg is probably the best representative of libertarianism at the usually neo-conservative Institute of Public Affairs:
Perhaps one of the most striking attributes of the current Republican field is their dovishness.
Last week’s forum for presidential candidates made clear scepticism about foreign interventionism isn’t limited to the libertarians Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
On Afghanistan, frontrunner Mitt Romney said, “I also think we’ve learned that our troops shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation”. On the Middle East, Newt Gingrich opined that, “we need to think fundamentally about reassessing our entire strategy in the region”.
If you agree, join the facebook group.
Australian Libertarian Society (old site) 
Morality does not stop at the border but for the most part coercive government action ought to. When we talk of “limited government” national borders ought to be one of the limits. A national emergency such as a defensive war may warrant a relaxation of those limits but it should be the exception not the rule.
Sukrit’s smugness knows no bounds. A pacifist isolationist, he presumes to decide who is the “best representative” of libertarianism and to falsely label the IPA.
When he starts focusing on libertarian values, he’ll get taken seriously. Until then he really ought to find other pacifists with whom he has common ground. Hanging around here is a bit like trolling.
Unless I’m mistaken David, “Thoughts on Freedom” was originally Sukrit’s blog. So, in spite of your attempt to bully him away, he can hang around here for as long as he likes.
It’s frustrating to see such a stark divide between “neo-con” libertarians and “isolationists”.
I think the REAL divide, rather than using such coloured terms is around the issue of sovereignty and nationalism.
No libertarian readily embraces the idea of nationalism- freedom should be a universal embraced globally. We have little respect for borders when it comes to trade. Yet anti-war libertarians respect borders when it comes to protecting liberty. Government should protect people from violence, coercion and theft. If a local government isn’t then the interventionist libertarian believes some government has to.
For the anti-war libertarian a government HAS to respect its own borders, because it’s only borders that it has legitimacy. If government is to represent the “legitimate use of force” it cannot become illegitimate by overstepping its borders. Sovereignty must be respected, even at the expense of protecting the liberty of those besieged.
I still tend more towards the anti-war side, but I wish that there would be less mud-slinging and “holier than thou” between the two. We don’t disagree that much. We may not agree on whether government should stop at our borders or not but we should be able to respect and understand the opposite position to our own. I hope I did justice to both sides.
Each situation should be judged on it’s merits. Reflexively being pro or anti war is utterly stupid.
That said, we agree on 95%+ of things.