Gee, I’m really glad Scott Walker has spent so much time boning up on policy issues–especially national security, an area he has no experience in unless (which I think he’s learned not to claim) you view his battles with unions and Democrats generally as military experience.
Anyway, check out the razor-sharp reasoning and positioning he displays in an “exclusive interview” with the Washington Examiner. I mean, you could slice a steel ingot with that intellect:
The United States should not be the world’s policeman, Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker told the Washington Examiner, in an exclusive interview.
The Wisconsin governor seeking to replace President Obama in the White House outlined a tough but judicious approach to the use of American military might.
“In terms of the use of force, there has to be a high standard,” Walker told the Examiner. “I think there should be a high bar, and it shouldn’t be about nation-building or being the world’s policeman. It should be about protecting our national security interests.”
Okay, that sounds vaguely non-interventiony. But then there’s this:
Walker said threats to the “American homeland,” or to allies or to “areas where Americans trade or travel” would be among his criteria for determining whether the military should take “force-specific” action.
Um, well, is there anywhere Americans don’t trade or travel? Are all of our allies–including those surrender monkeys who signed that Munich agreement with Iran–entitled to military support?
But wait, there’s more:
“I think that military is appropriate to use when we’ve had a threat abroad from radical Islamic terrorism or other terrorism-related threats,” Walker added. “We need to act to take that out before they encroach on American soil.”
Ah, preemption!
Yeah, having this guy as commander-in-chief would be quite the adventure.
