Foreign Policy- What Really Matters

guess we will need to hear about China and currency manipulation

This column nails my take on the foreign policy "debate."


http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/17/what-foreign-policy-debate

During last week's vice presidential debate, Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, struggled mightily to distinguish the two major parties' foreign policies. He was reduced to squabbling with Vice President Joe Biden about how often Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and faulting the administration (over and over again) for describing Syrian autocrat Bashar al-Assad as a "reformer."

Ryan's main message was that Romney would do basically what Obama is doing but with more "credibility." It was clear that on all the major foreign policy issues Ryan and Biden discussed—including Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria—Obama and Romney have essentially the same positions....

Like Johnson, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) worries that "we are in too many places, too often, and we don't seem to even know the reason—or where we will end up when we're done." Instead of learning from foreign fiascos, Paul says in a recent CNN.com essay, "both parties rush headlong into more places they don't understand."

This is why the next debate needs Gary Johnson, someone who questions the rational and constitutional bases for American military actions around the world. Heck, he might give the other two a geography lesson: Libya is not near the north Atlantic Ocean, so NATO had no business being there. He might ask Obama where the president got the authority to intervene in a civil war. He could ask Romney, who wants to increase military budget, just who is going to invade a country protected by two oceans. Does he believe Putin has designs on Western Europe?

Did you see where the French are preparing to send troops to an African civil war?

"You be one fine, fine, sistah, Condoleezza."