I missed most of the debate tonight (class, bummer) but came in just in time to hear some expert question-dodging by Gov. Perry: When asked about his views on American Adventurism, he refused to say anything about Bush's foreign policy (as I recall), instead praising Obama for keeping Gitmo open and the Navy Seals for getting Osama.
Then he insisted that his adventurism comment was purely philosophical, and that was that.
I only got a B+ in Philosophy 101, but I'm pretty sure that if you're talking about how you decide when to invade which countries, you're a far cry from the realm of pure philosophy. Philosophical beliefs will naturally inform foreign policy decisions –– in the same way that they inform all our decisions –– but there's a huge difference between choosing where and when to drop bombs and arguing about whether or not existence precedes essence.
And if Perry's comments on adventurism had no bearing on the real world, then how are we supposed to know what he believes about foreign policy? I'm sincerely curious about how he feels about Iraq (Has he said anything specific? If anyone knows, please post a link.)
A hasty Google search turned up a snarky article from ForeignPolicy.com which provided an interesting quote from a recent speech:
"It's a dangerous world that we live in today. As the 10th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 approach, we must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy, wherever they are, before they strike at home."
Is this also merely a philosophical statement? Or is it an outright endorsement of neoconservative foreign policy?
Is there a difference between fighting the enemy before they attack us, wherever they are (n.b.: They're kind of all over) and adventurism?