Republican Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, now the frontrunner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination (at least in the Iowa Caucuses), managed to do two things to alienate a large segment of the American people on ABC's This Week: he exposed himself as a war hawk, and he completely waffled, in both the American and British sense of the word, when asked a simple foreign policy question about whether or not he'd send ground troops into Syria to fight against the Islamic fundamentalist terror group ISIS.
You can watch the video of Martha Raddatz's interview of Walker here. For those of you who can't stomach watching Walker speak, here's a transcript of Martha Raddatz's interview of Walker, courtesy of PoliticusUSA:
RADDATZ: Let’s talk about some specific, and you talk about leadership and you talk about big, bold, fresh ideas. What is your big, bold, fresh idea in Syria?
WALKER: Well, I think – I go back to the red line.
RADDATZ: Let’s not go back. Let’s go forward. What is your big, bold idea in Syria?
WALKER: I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it’s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it’s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we’re willing to take appropriate action. I think it should be surgical.
RADDATZ: You don’t think 2,000 air strikes is taking it to ISIS in Syria and Iraq?
WALKER: I think we need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world. I think it’s a mistake to –
RADDATZ: But what does that mean? I don’t know what aggressive strategy means. If we’re bombing and we’ve done 2,000 air strikes, what does an aggressive strategy mean in foreign policy?
WALKER: I think anywhere and everywhere, we have to be – go beyond just aggressive air strikes. We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that’s what it takes, because I think, you know–
RADDATZ: Boots on the ground in Syria? U.S. boots on the ground in Syria?
WALKER: I don’t think that is an immediate plan, but I think anywhere in the world–
RADDATZ: But you would not rule that out.
WALKER: I wouldn’t rule anything out. I think when you have the lives of Americans at stake and our freedom loving allies anywhere in the world, we have to be prepared to do things that don’t allow those measures, those attacks, those abuses to come to our shores.
I searched "waffle definition" on Google, and I got a pair of dictionary-style entries for the word "waffle", the first one of which included North American English and British English defintions of the verb "waffle".
Here's the North American definition of the verb "waffle":
fail to make up one's mind.
Here's the British definition of the verb "waffle":
speak or write, especially at great length, without saying anything important or useful.
In both the North American and British senses of the word, Scott Walker completely waffled on whether or not he'd send U.S. ground troops into Syria to fight a war against ISIS, also referred to as ISIL or the Islamic State. Walker refused to say decisively whether or not he'd send ground troops into Syria to fight against ISIS (although his use of various neocon buzzwords and the fact that he stopped short of outright calling for boots on the ground to combat ISIS that he's a war hawk who would likely send ground troops into battle against ISIS), and he spoke at great length about wanting to get tough on Islamic fundamentalist terror groups but gave virtually no specifics on what he'd do on foreign policy if elected president.
Not only does Scott Walker's horrible domestic policy track record in his home state of Wisconsin frighten me (he's racked up a multi-billion dollar state budget deficit, privatized public education, busted unions, gave his cronies pay raises, and handed out corporate welfare and tax breaks to the wealthy), his vague, hawkish foreign policy frightens me as well.