Scott Walker Says Wisconsin People "Tested" Him to Fight ISIS, "Lead" World

Scott Walker

Voters requiring evidence Scott Walker is a lightweight not fit for office at any level in our constitutional republic ought to consider Walker's foreign policy address at the Citadel military college in South Carolina. (Opoien, Capital Times) (New York Times)

Walker again makes the absurd assertion his secretly crafting legislation in 2010-11 on which he had refused to campaign—dropping a "bomb" on Wisconsin public employees to use Walker's phrase—makes Walker imbued with knowledge of battling ISIS, a force created after the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.

"America will not be intimidated. And neither will I. America must be, not only the land of the free, but the home of the brave. An America that is unintimidated. ... Clearly, clearly, we can no longer afford to be passive spectators while the world descends into chaos. With all the challenges we face around the globe today, now is not the time for untested leadership. I have been tested like no other candidate in this race," said Walker.

The Capital Times' Opoien notes: "This wasn't the first time Walker invoked his union battle as a sign of his preparedness to tackle international conflicts. In February, addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference, Walker famously declared, 'If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world.'" [YouTube]

Nor is this the first time Walker has asserted a strange and vague notion that America must reassert military strength some where at some time to "lead" again, a reckless notion that drew wide derision after the first Republican debate.

Taking Walker's words at face value what manner does Walker view the American people when he conceives them as a force to be conquered (to use Walker's description again)? Or as analogous in any way to ISIS/ISIL?

Walker's wide-ranging, hawkish foreign policy pronouncements have been panned by foreign policy experts for months. (US News)

Notes Juan Cole on Scott Walker's response to a question about foreign policy in early August:

MEGYN KELLY: Governor Walker, in February you said that we needed to gain partners in the Arab world. Which Arab country not already in the U.S. led coalition has potential to be our greatest partner?

SCOTT WALKER: What about then (ph) [an unintelligible phonetic sound], we need to focus on the ones we have. You look at Egypt, probably the best relationship we’ve had in Israel, at least in my lifetime, incredibly important.

You look at the Saudis — in fact, earlier this year, I met with Saudi leaders, and leaders from the United Arab Emirates, and I asked them what’s the greatest challenge in the world today? Set aside the Iran deal. They said it’s the disengagement of America. We are leading from behind under the Obama-Clinton doctrine — America’s a great country. We need to stand up and start leading again, and we need to have allies, not just in Israel, but throughout the Persian Gulf.”

Writes Cole:

I mean, could the man even find these places on the map? First of all, what in the world does that mean, 'You look at Egypt, probably the best relationship we’ve had in Israel, at least in my lifetime.' Does he think Egypt is in Israel? That 'Israel' means something like 'the Middle East'? If so, no wonder Congress is willing to do whatever Tel Aviv asks. I mean, how can you decline, when the Middle East calls?

As for having allies 'throughout the Persian Gulf,' the US already does. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman are all US allies. Bahrain hosts the HQ of the Fifth Fleet. We have several thousand troops based in Kuwait. Qatar leases us the al-Udaid Air Force Base. Etc., etc. I’m not sure what the Gulf Cooperation Council states in the Gulf want the US to lead them toward, but their current campaign is in Yemen, which, although I am very critical of the Houthi rebels, I don’t think is a good idea. No doubt they would have wanted us to take the lead there. But, do we need another quagmire? But Walker seems weak-minded enough so maybe all sorts of foreign countries can bamboozle him into doing their adventurism for them.

Concludes Cole: "After W., I have a rule that if you flounder around speaking some odd Klingon form of English and don’t seem actually to, like, know anything, you can’t be president."

Or any office as the rural areas of Wisconsin are finding out, now.