[WS:} I agree that the two are interrelated, but is not the purpose of rational analysis to analytically separate what is conflated in everyday life?
For example, what do we gain from conflating the War in Vietnam with the War on Poverty, other than a pretext for moral indignation? But we can gain more insights when we view the two separate. Yes, the War on Poverty was partially a response to international situation - war in Vietnam, Soviet competition, etc. - but the key attributes of that response - essentially government subsidies channeled through private organizations - were determined by the internal politics and popular sentiments. A different country would respond with government funded and run programs, for example.
It is not my intention to argue merits and demerits of the War on Poverty and other policies, but underscore the importance of separating domestic and foreign policies. In the end, all politics is local, even if the country is run over by a foreign military. Even a direct military occupation eventually reverts to what is known as "indirect colonial rule" i.e. colonial masters using local factions and institutions as proxies.
Wojtek