Speaking to reporters after a campaign stop for GOP House candidate Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Perry said the U.S. must do “whatever’s required to keep ISIS from continuing to be a clear and present danger” to America and its allies, including sending in American ground troops if needed.Also, I'm calling bullplop on this:
Perry’s position puts him at odds with much of the Republican Party, which has largely backed the strikes but stopped short of expressing openness to ground force involvement.If "stopped short" means "clearly implying it while trying not to say it out loud because the wider public wants to get back into Iraq like they want a running belt sander strapped to their faces" then sure, I'll buy that. Rick Perry himself hedged his position as best as his new glasses would let him:
Perry said that having boots on the ground was not a “position any of us want to get into — but we’ve got to stop ISIS.”Fine, whatever the president does here or in any other country is wrong and you would do it "tougher." Children crossing the Texas border? Send in the troops! More trouble in America's Middle Eastern client states? More troops! The potato salad going bad? Not if our infantry boys have anything to say about that! This always works out and there are never ever any repercussions worth mentioning, so problem solved.
Congratulations, that's a hell of a foreign policy you've got going there. Quick, book this fellow on one of the Sunday shows so we can hear this sharp new take. We'll worry about whether it's workable later. What's important is that we spread this innovative new theory of "what this problem needs is another shootin' war" to the masses.