What is Aleppo?

If I hear one more assertion that Gary Johnson has "an alarming lack of foreign policy knowledge," I might just snap. Comments like these undoubtedly stem from a couple gaffes in which Johnson didn't recognize the name of Aleppo, and then couldn't name a foreign leader he admired. (Some say he also didn't know the name of North Korea's leader, but in this case he declined to answer--possibly tired of playing Trivial Pusuit!)

On that second point, I was watching that town hall, and he did have a foreign leader in mind--Vincente Fox--but completely blanked on the name. I forget people's names all the time, and would argue that anyone who says this has never happened to them has never been put on the spot on television. In any case, I don't blame him for not really having any LIVING foreign heads of state he admires (that was the stipulation of the question).

But I digress. This particular post is about the Aleppo gaffe. I see so many people mocking him and making the assertion that he's an idiot because of this. I get it, it's fun to think you're smarter than a presidential candidate, as if he somehow managed to work his way through college, grow his business to employ a thousand people, and then be an extremely successful and popular governor of a state, all while suffering from severe cognitive impairment. Riiight.

Not to rain on everyone's parade, but I really don't think Aleppogate meant he was unaware of the situation in Syria. Firstly, I watched that interview, and he went on to discuss the situation just fine after the gaffe. Secondly, as you can see in this story published in 2012, Gary Johnson has been talking about Syria for years, and his views in 2012 reflect he had a good grasp on what is going on.

Unfortunately, it's a lot more fun to ridicule a man for not knowing something than to attribute the gaffe to a momentary lapse or, as he says, basically misunderstanding the question. Recent evidence of certain news agencies colluding with the Clinton campaign could also suggest that this was spun intentionally, but we can stick with "oops, the reporters didn't do their research." It's almost sad that either of those is completely believable. #RIPJournalism

Secondly, let's pretend for a moment that Gary Johnson really didn't know what Aleppo is (again, we'd have to ignore the fact that he has spoken about Syria previously). I would argue that that is not disqualifying, even without taking into account the egregious flaws both of the mainstream candidates possess.

To illustrate my point, let's imagine that during the next presidency, a brand new crisis arises in a country most people here have never even heard of. Do we care more that the president had former knowledge of this place, or that they apply correct principles to the new situation? Do we assume that, when asked to make a decision, he/she will be expected to do so in a vacuum, or would they be advised by experts on the matter?

In this hypothetical situation, what would Trump do? It probably depends on whether he has business interests in the area. I actually haven't heard him speak coherently on foreign policy--beyond a strong theme of protectionism--so I really wouldn't know what to expect.

And what would Clinton do? We can almost certainly expect some sort of intervention, whether it is drone strikes, boots on the ground, or sending aid to one side of the conflict. The problem with this approach, other than that it is costly and may put American lives at risk, is the inevitable unintended consequences. ISIS is a prime example of this. It also causes tension with other countries, as with our meddling in Syria.

To be fair, Hillary's reaction would probably depend on whether one side of the conflict had donated to the Clinton foundation, so we can't know for sure what she would do.

I can confidently say that Johnson would exercise restraint when it comes to intervening in foreign conflicts or crises. He may employ economic and diplomatic strategies to influence the situation, and if we're attacked directly of course he will attack back, but otherwise he will not be involved with what he calls "foreign regime change." We can also trust him not to be deterred by conflicts of interest.

Not sure of Gary Johnson's foreign policy approach? Check out his address at University of Chicago.

The bottom line is this: if we care so much that our leaders have all the knowledge going into office, then maybe we should be giving them college-level history and geography exams during the vetting process, or engage in a Geography Bee instead of debates. The absurdity of this idea reflects the ridiculous reasoning behind it.

If, instead, mere knowledge is not more important than principles and ideas, then I suggest we stop getting so hung up on how our candidates do during media pop quizzes and start worrying more about what kind of judgment they will have in office.