James Lindsay tries to draw four lessons from the meager discussion last night of, er, the rest of the world. Among them:
Rick Perry needs to figure out what he means by “military adventurism.” Perry vowed at last week’s VFW national convention to avoid a “foreign policy of military adventurism.” That raised an obvious question: what constitutes “military adventurism”? Harris asked Perry to explain, and the Texas governor didn’t have an answer. He responded at first by saying that he “was making a comment about a philosophy”—without explaining what that philosophy was—and then pivoting to applaud the killing of Osama bin Laden. When Harris pressed him to explain his philosophy, Perry offered empty bromides about having “a clear exit strategy” and never putting “our young men and women’s lives at risk when American interests are not clearly defined.” Perry can expect to hear more questions about military adventurism, perhaps as soon as Monday night’s debate in Tampa.
Jacob Stokes explains Perry's reticence:
Perry knows the wars aren’t selling. He also knows that his advisors were the architects of the sort of “military adventurism” of the last ten years that he was alluding to in his speech to the VFW, where the quote came from. Throwing them under the bus would have provoked a loud outcry—and likely desertion—from neocons in Washington. He tried to thread the needle, but I think it was one of his weakest moments of the night. If these issues have salience with the electorate, which the evidence suggests that they don’t, Perry looked very wishy-washy last night.
He's just caught, as they all are, in a bind. They know the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been disastrous, but cannot call those responsible for them to account. Because those names would be Bush and Cheney.
The Dish 