Gary Johnson

Anthony Fisher Talks Gary Johnson's Foreign Policy on Kennedy Tonight

A presidential candidate who is skeptical of non-stop military interventionism? Is that even allowed?

|

Keepin' it FBN
Andrew Heaton

Tune into Kennedy on the Fox Business Network (FBN) tonight at 8p ET, where I'll be talking with the show's beloved hostess and friend of Reason about the foreign policy alternative offered by Gary Johnson, which I wrote about yesterday for Reason.

In addition to calling for reasonable cuts in military spending and for Congress to re-assume its constitutional duty as the entity that declares war, Johnson actually dared to speak to the American voting populace as if they were adults:

Johnson concluded with a call to end the "naive and misleading" fantasy that there will ever be a "V-I Day" to celebrate a decisive military victory over ISIS or any other iteration of the "Global War on Terror." His plan for battling Islamic extremism focuses on "isolating" and "containing them," by "starving them of the funds and support they must have to mount large-scale attacks," rather than "dropping bombs" or putting "tens of thousands of boots on the ground."

Tune in tonight at 8p or set your DVRs for Kennedy on FBN to see the segment.

NEXT: Clinton Praised Putin, Putin Ally Says Vote for Trump is Vote for 'World Peace,' Obama Sets Sights on Mars: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Finally, a segment whose content is worthy of the standard segment allotment time of only two minutes, twelve seconds (45 seconds of which is taken by Kennedy interruptions).

  2. Funny, but no
    Fly by night
    Fucked by nature
    Facebook Ninja

  3. GayJay’s foreign policy is to bomb people in places he doesn’t even know exist, all in the name of “humanitarianism”.

    Fortunately, he can’t win we don’t have to worry what a wretchedly awful president he’d turn out to be.

    1. I don’t think the quote here makes much sense- it would take too much text to go into it here, but some of my work involves developing systems that reliably solve problems, and don’t go too wrong too often. Something I’ve learned from doing that is that you have to be very careful about being too abstract- it’s possible to articulate abstract principles that work, but, in practice, only if you are abstracting over many concrete instances. And you still have to be able to map back to concrete actions for your abstractions to be effective.

      There’s a learning loop here- you try a lot of concrete things, filter them by what worked, to at least some degree, create theory about that, and then test that theory by taking concrete actions based on that theory (rinse wash and repeat.) The problem with ISIS is that we haven’t seen anything quite like it before, and we have very little concrete action to abstract over, at the moment.

      Johnson’s statements aren’t a strategy for dealing with the modern world, but more importantly they do not amount to a strategy for learning how to deal with the modern world. They are anodyne. He has the misfortune to have come along at a time where the anodyne is trumped by the sensational.

      1. Don’t worry. Orange Buffoon Daddy will stop the scary men.

        1. OK, now I’m reassured. But what if he loses?

          1. According to the PM links, WWIII

      2. Unfortunately, Johnson is answering the question “what can we do about al-Qaeda,” not “what can we do about ISIS.”

        He doesn’t seem to realize they have internal revenue. It’s another “Aleppo moment,” but most people in the media are too ignorant to seize on it, as it’s not a trivia question with a four-syllable response they can memorize.

        He still knows more about foreign policy than Trump, though, and Hillary’s “expertise” is an argument against her, not for.

        1. I’m criticizing GJ because he’s worth criticizing. Trump? Clinton? Why bother, at this point.

      3. We don’t have defined goals in the Middle East beyond making it better. The likelihood of stumbling into a solution is very low but we persist in the name of democracy and preserving America. One of which makes no sense and the other seems mostly unrelated.

        1. Seems to me that the US government has been trying to centrally plan the middle east for decades. Not surprisingly, it has been a dismal failure.

          1. They’ve been doing it at least since the 1950s.

        2. We don’t have defined goals in the Middle East beyond making it better.

          I don’t think that’s “our” goal at all. I’ve thought for a long time that our government’s goal is to keep the region divided and weak, but stable. Which is tricky.

          There is so much oil in such a small little area right around the western Gulf that it only makes sense in realpolitik terms to establish the tiniest polities possible and keep them as much in competition with each other as possible hopefully while minimizing actual warfare.

          It’s the only reason for Kuwait City to be a separate polity from Iraq, for example. And it’s the prime reason why Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia must stay separated, even though historically they’ve all been under the same government more often than not. If they were under the same government today, it would be an economic powerhouse to make China look like small potatoes.

          Claiming we’re “building nations” or “spreading democracy” is just a smoke screen.

          1. While you could probably unite the Sunnis, I doubt you could bring the Iranian Shia under the same government without wiping out half the population of the Middle East.

            That said, I don’t give them that much credit. Our actions have been haphazard at best. Invading Iraq was a colossal blunder if our goal was to keep the powers balanced against each other.

            1. Besides which, our ME policy was defined by the Cold War until the USSR fell. After that, all the neoconservative loonies started feeling their oats, thinking they could solve the problem of the ME.

            2. While you could probably unite the Sunnis, I doubt you could bring the Iranian Shia under the same government without wiping out half the population of the Middle East

              The Iranian Shia were the government that united them for about 500 years. If Protestants and Catholics can share Europe, someday Sunni and Shia will be able to share the ME.

              Invading Iraq was a colossal blunder if our goal was to keep the powers balanced against each other.

              Indeed – and a lot of foreign policy people in the establishment recognized that at the time – there was a reason Bush Sr. didn’t push through to Baghdad after “liberating” Kuwait.

              Not all players have the same goals, wisdom, or abilities. That the last couple of administrations have been completely incompetent on the foreign policy front, meaning they colossally suck at the whole “minimize actual war” part.

              But the standing UN plan (since WWII) to keep all UN-recognized borders in place where they were drawn (by the UN) forevermore can’t realistically have any other aim than to keep the region divided and weak. Whether our leaders are competent at that goal is a separate question from whether their intentions are to make the area better.

          2. And it’s the prime reason why Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia must stay separated, even though historically they’ve all been under the same government more often than not.

            Not really. The interior of Saudi Arabia was for centuries not “ruled” by anybody.

            1. Fair enough, but in that sense they never have been and never will be. Like parts of Nevada. But those people won’t be setting up oil wells or otherwise producing wealth for the Empire in any significant way. They will go back to being “a silly people” no one pays attention to.

        3. I think Joe Jackson pretty much covered this a long time ago. Honestly, if Joe Jackson ran for President and were able to get over the constitutional hurdles I’d vote for him. Not over a serious candidate, mind you, but over any major party nominee I’ve seen in my lifetime.

              1. He really was a mess in concert though- I mean really much worse than in the studio.

                1. That’s disappointing to hear – he always seemed to me like he would be good live.

                  1. Well- I’m probably being unfair here, and working from a small sample size. It’s really hard to find concert versions of “Different for Girls” because that title has been reused. On the other hand, I kind of think Elle King is great, even if she is Rob Shneider’s daughter, so…

                    There is a really great duet/concert version of the Joe Jackson song I can’t find, and I am mostly pissy about that.

              2. And the FDA/EPA

                1. So fucking great.

      4. “The problem with ISIS is that we haven’t seen anything quite like it before…”
        I’ma have to disagree, here. While nothing is ever exactly like something else, I think there are many earlier examples of the rampaging hordes taking land, people, and wealth from areas (not) protected by weak governments.
        The Sea People (including the ancient Israelites), the Huns, the Mongols, hell, even the original Mohammedans, are some that come to mind.

        1. I’m not sure that the policies that worked for Tyre (And don’t forget, Tyre rules the waves) are appropriate for the US in 2016. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the US has not had to deal with anything like ISIS before, and that because that is so we do not have a very good template for dealing with it.

          1. Sure. But, we don’t have to deal with ISIS. They’re not going to invade the US. Does it matter if the caliphate is reborn? The Levant seemed a bit calmer under the Ottoman empire, and the Empires before that. It is simply not the job of the USA to determine who rules which corner of sand, especially now that the wars of the 20th century, including the cold war, are over. No matter who controls the oil of that area, that oil will be sold on the world market. The only other reason to interfere in that area is Israel, and defending them doesn’t mean we have to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, or anywhere else.

            1. I think we agree on at least one thing- we won’t see a serious land invasion of the US by ISIS. They, unfortunately (from their perspective,) lack the bases and logistics in Canada that would make that possible.

              ISIS does, unfortunately, have the ability to mess with many things we consider related to our interests. One alternative is to relinquish all those interests, and… I won’t lie- I find that an appealing option, and most in line with my philosophy. But do you have any idea how hard it would be to actually relinquish those interests?

              Unfortunately we will have to deal with ISIS. My philosophy might say “Fuck everyone I do not know/am not related to, and let them deal with their own problems.” The reality is that the US is going to be engaged with ISIS, so we might as well do a good job of engaging them.

              1. The reality is that the US is going to be engaged with ISIS, so we might as well do a good job of engaging them

                There’s real truth in that.

                It seems, though, that if we wanted to crush them ourselves, at this point that would mean either a direct alliance with Russia/Assad and giving up on “Assad must go,” or we fight a pretty direct war with Russia/Assad before we can turn around and deal with ISIS and then occupy at least semi-permanently.

                The other option is to admit that we’re not going to help push the rebellion through to completion, tell Assad he can stay in power but expect to be treated shitty by the US and its allies, and let Russia and Assad crush ISIS together.

                It seems to me like it’s just a choice between which politically crappy option makes the President look least crappy.

                1. Well, yeah. Shit or get off the pot. Have your cake or eat it. Whatever metaphor you can think of. You can’t fight ISIS while trying to depose Assad and sharing airspace with Russia while trying to keep Russia from exerting influence in the country that hosts Russia’s only port on the black sea.
                  It’s like watching blind drunks play mumblipeg.
                  And this is the experience Hillary brings to the job. She’s going to start WWIII.

                2. The proper response would be to crush them in order to tell the Russians that they ought to back the fuck off. Instead… well, we’ll see what happens,

    2. I see you’re softening on your GayJay stance.

      1. I’m definitely softening on my gayjay stance. I’m reminded of a comic who moved from NYC to LA. He thought living in NYC was like being forced to suck cock. Then he moved to LA and was like… living in LA Is like having to suck _demon_ cock. Then he went to Vegas, which was like having to suck demon cock with barbs and tinsel and confetti on it.

        To me, gayjay is NYC. Sure, there’s garbage on the streets, it smells bad and makes no sense, but it isn’t LA or Vegas, thank you very much. I’m willing to swallow some of my objections at this point because I’d rather get fucked a little less than a little more, but I’d really rather not have confetti sprinkled over the scene like I thought it was some sort of party.

  4. Huh, up to this point I thought “libertarian foreign policy” was heavy on non-interventionism but I guess not anymore…

    His plan for battling Islamic extremism focuses on “isolating” and “containing them,” by “starving them of the funds and support they must have to mount large-scale attacks,” rather than “dropping bombs” or putting “tens of thousands of boots on the ground.”

    So some sort of Cold War-style proxy wars? What is he talking about here?

  5. My plan would be to turn off the TV

    1. I watched the two-hour Frontline doc on the rise of Daesh last night : very good refresher on the events of its beginnings to now.

      tl;dw The Sunnis are obsessed with Iran while Turkey has its focus on the Kurds. Everyone except the Americans believes that the Islamic State is a secondary problem that will be easily defeated once other ‘issues’ are sorted out.

      1. No, no no – you’ve got it all wrong.

        You see, there’s one side, those are the Good Guys, who are fighting the other side, aka the Bad Guys. We’re on the side of the former group.

      2. The other issues being the entire population of the Middle East.

    2. A nice snark, but there’s a lot of truth there.

  6. What’s the over/ under on number of times she’ll interrupt him?

    1. Kanyedy

    1. So we know who Shikha’s voting for.

      1. We knew that already.

        1. Yeah, that article, it was Dalmia (foregone conclusion) and someone else…

  7. She does have a way with words

    1. ahyep.

      JFK was an STD-infected drug addict who cavorted with whores at the White House, but the media ferociously hid all this from the public, publishing fairy-tale versions of his presidency as “Camelot.”

      Best line I’ve heard all week wrt pussygate

      1. Don’t forget the sort of consensual sex with 18 year olds.

    2. Going way, way, way back to a few weeks ago, the same media gasping in horror at “p*ssy” sure didn’t mind my being called a c*nt repeatedly on a Comedy Central broadcast. And when I say “didn’t mind,” I mean they thought it was awesome.

      Assuming she is talking about the Rob Lowe roast, it does beg the question why she was even there since the only purpose seemed to be to plug her latest book. Well, that and be the obvious pi?ata for all the has-beens doing the roasting.

  8. Cover Girls first cover boy

    1. Dude ain’t even attractive

      1. He should go to Hollywood and become a make-up artist. (Seriously.)

    2. I eagerly await “Maybe It’s Marmaduke”

    3. That’s seriously gross, but he looks a lot like the women that sarcastic posts here, IOW a 12 year old boy with makeup.

    4. a social media celebrity

      SMDH

      1. So much doggy humping?

        1. social media darling hater

  9. Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately

    And here we go

    1. waning auto-play and warning NYT

    2. Trump touched me too. I’m still trying to get the spray tan off.

    3. Trump and Bill Clinton both touched me back when I was 12. What’s the NYT phone number? I see a yuuuuuggggeee cash settlement heading my way.

    4. It actually didn’t sound like he grouped her, just did some recon.

  10. Glad they cleared this up

    http://www.bbc.com/future/stor…..sonalities

    1. “what imperative does one grey box have to interact with another grey box?”

      1. “You want imperative, comrade? How does a nice vacation in the salt mines sound?” said in thick Russian accent

    2. I think we need a few more studies before the science is settled.

      1. Do we have consensus?

        1. Not as long as there’s more funding coming.

          1. Well that torpedoes the climate change consensus.

            1. Not as long as there’s more funding coming.

  11. “His plan for battling Islamic extremism focuses on “isolating” and “containing them”

    I’m pretty sure we can fit them all into Detroit and I hear there’s plenty of empty buildings there.

  12. CNN Sitting On ‘Obama Erection’ Video … Since 2008?

    http://tiny.cc/jklvfy

    “Aboard a campaign flight, then-Senator Obama is talking on a cellphone as he arises from his seat; nearby a female reporter catches a glance of something that makes her uncomfortable, sending her skirmishing to the back of the plane.

    “Obama, rather than downplay the awkward display, instead plays it up, positioning himself so the gathered reporters have little choice but to take in his chauvinistic display.

    “Meanwhile, a female voice can be heard ordering everyone to sit down, ostensibly so they can get a better look. The gathered female reporters laugh at the scene, further encouraging Obama’s bawdy behavior.

    1. I’m glad that you *still* haven’t done any Madeleine Kahn jokes, that shows admirable self-restraint.

    2. I’ll tell you what, if he were running a third time, he wouldn’t get my vote.

  13. I haven’t read this, but it seems to be the newest edition of “how can we persuade you dumb millennials not to vote Johnson”

    1. Well, I’m sure the Donald or Hilldawg will end all of that once they’re elected, so what better reason to not vote for Johnson?

    2. I saw this one on facebook under why progs shouldn’t vote for Johnson

      http://bluevirginia.us/wp-cont…..itions.jpg

      1. The appearance of the Hillary column…was that intentional?

  14. I haven’t read this, either, but apparently there are five ways Johnson is better than Ron Paul: Gay rights, the death penalty, immigration and border security, free trade, and the electoral college.

    (caution: each reason has its own separate Web page)

    1. Had the GOP nominated Rand, I would be voting for him instead of GayJay.

      1. No brainer there.

      2. I would be voting for Rand as well. Now I’m staying home.

        1. I thought about staying home. I’ll vote for Gary not so much as a vote for him as a symbolic vote for limited government which he is clearly the closet candidate on by far.

          1. Voted for him last time. This time, he has just really disappointed me.

  15. In blind-squirrel-finds-acorn news, the gang of Morning Joe find Hillary’s shouting voice off-putting:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzPwHm6RCfA

    1. Gee, I can’t imagine why. Maybe by the time she’s a floating head in a jar they’ll have that worked out.

  16. You know who else shouted her way to political success?

      1. *golf clap*

    1. Every woman who is on the board of the HOA?

  17. Move over Caitlyn!

    I mean, I know there’s bathroom wars, but oh baby when you dudes or dudettes feast your lustful eyes on this, you’re gonna be totally down with that unisex bathroom!

  18. Want to induce vomiting? Try this-

    Queen Hillary meets with her courtiers:
    https://youtu.be/dtRj6x1jHuU?t=4m45s

    1. At least we can be proud of the following commenters. The grasshoppers are learning from the masters:

      larkyleroy3 hours ago

      anyone grab a good pussy lately??

      Noir Griseus17 minutes ago

      Yes.?

      Misogyny McRacist5 minutes ago

      Damn sure have,one of my favorite pastimes!

      1. Yeah, I’m like totally not watching that. I clicked to read the comments. Hillary creeps me out even more than Obama, and I can’t even tolerate the sound of his voice, let alone watching him speak.

  19. One libertarian candidate who may do real damage to the two party establishment in Alaska:

    http://tiny.cc/s4lvfy

    “While recent polling shows Murkowski with a substantial lead, Miller is also placing second. There is still plenty of time for Miller to gain momentum and win this thing.”

    1. Forget it. The Poles have never lost anything, ever.

  20. Hey remember this summer when reason spent weeks shitting their pants over protesters being pushed around at Trump rallies? Well now it is happening at Clinton rallies. I am sure reason will be all over this. Not

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/clin…..rotesters/

    1. Somebody feed that guy a cheeseburger.

    2. I remember Trump University. Fake scandal?

  21. I want a libertarian one of these:

    Asgardia

    We’re going to need nukes, comrades, nukes that unleash AI mulching devices.

    1. Elon Musk should name his Mars colony Muskovy, for the LULZ.

  22. I don’t know how we are worrying about creepy clowns when there are monsters like this on the loose:

    Deplorables!

      1. Horizontal-axis wind turbine?

        1. Boom-chicka-wow-wow.

  23. Youtube comment gold:

    Yuri Maltzev likes to quote an example he experienced while a junior economist for the Politburo in the USSR.
    Gorbachev said he wanted the Soviet union to be more like sweden, then the economy minister quipped “but General Secretary where will we get all the Swedes ?”?

    1. Show this to a prog, any prog, and see if they get it. Hint: They won’t.

  24. Well, I apparently missed FIsher but I see Kennedy talking to the fat one from NSYNC, and she’s not even asking him about Lou Pearlman. I wonder if any of the boys visited him on the set of Hellboy.

  25. While coming to education, the technology has brought many advantages to students and as well as teachers. showbox For example, students can do their homework or assignment with ease and can complete it faster by using the Internet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.