Finally got around to reading that link. These guys make me breathe a heavy sigh.

There's a key difference between then and now. It's a big difference that no politician ever will admit to, because the Big Lie is dependent on it. That is that no amount of Islamic extremism is an existential threat. John Kerry got crucified in the 2004 election for suggesting that America's goal in the "War on Terror" should be to reduce the level of terrorism to a nuisance. Lesson learned for politicians.

But it doesn't change the fact that the Soviets were very much (and remain so, so long as they have stockpiles of Nukes) an existential threat to the whole West (just as we're an existential threat to the world, should we ever want to take that tack).

Walker is a moron of the highest order. The dude didn't even finish college--even Ms. Palin got that far. I applaud the reporter for going for the throat when challenging him to clarify what he means, but still, implicit in her questioning is the idea that something must be done. Until we define a strategic mission (e.g. protect key oil fields; serve humanitarian ends, etc.), then tactical operations are meaningless and wasteful. So far, I haven't read anything to assuage my fear that we don't actually have a strategic goal in Syria (other than the vagueness of "bringing stability to the region", whatever that nonsense phrase means). Walker likely isn't smart enough to understand much of this, as he doesn't seem to have a decent grasp of history. My guess is that he's just treading water, trying not to say anything too dense until his handlers educate him on what line to toe. Just a guess.