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.
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). Very true. Terror is not a truly existential threat, and nukes are. But the outbreak of nuclear war is different from the spread of "communism" (really, nationalist populism) which America spent so much time and money combating from 1950-1975. The nuclear arsenal was the threat. The ideology was never as intoxicating in the third world as we made it out to be. (In my opinion.) Nor did the latter affect the former, except in rare cases -- Cuban Missile Crisis, perhaps. I think you're right about Walker. I've heard it said that Obama didn't win the election; Romney lost it. The GOP nomination may therefore go to the guy who generates the least "stupidity" press. I don't think Walker has a shot unless something strange happens, but he clearly thinks he does. I don't know that I want us to have goals in Syria. Even those Washington insiders with a strong grasp of history can't really distinguish between good and bad over there. It's only going to get worse in 2015, though. War Nerd notwithstanding, this seems to be the Year of ISIS so far, at least if you ask the media. We'll see.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.