First, Obama hasn't done "a complete 180 on all his foreign policy after he got elected and briefed."  He's reversed course on Gitmo, NAFTA, and the surge in Afghanistan.  Go back to what he wrote in Foreign Affairs in 2007, and you'll see pretty much what he'sa doing right now -- good and bad.  

Second, foreign policy is half of the president's job, and it's the half that contains fewer constitutional constraints.  So, just to be clear, you're entirely comfortable supporting someone who you implicitly acknowledge knows nothing about the world?  

I find the attitude, in a presidential candidate, of "well, I'll just be briefed later" mind-boggling. Sure, Cain's staff can brief him about the name of Uzbekistan's head of state, but can they brief him about whether we need to cultivate that person as an ally? Can they brief him about whether to invade Iran, or how to respond to the demonstrations in Syria, or if NATO is still (or should be) functional, or if preventing genocide in central Africa should be a major goal of the US? There's nowhere one can go to "look up the answers" to these questions. There isn't even anywhere one can go to be sure of acquiring all the information one needs to make a decision. Answers have to come from a broad understanding of history.

I wish, in the debates, the moderator would ask something like, "What lessons should we draw from the foreign policy of Otto von Bismarck?" Or, "Who was the best pre-WWII British prime minister, and why?" Could Cain (or Bachmann or Perry) even begin to answer these questions? It would be nice to have a president who would at least have some idea about the issues involved in FP, rather than one who simply counts on being "briefed" by a staff member two minutes before making decisions with potentially world-altering consequences.

Obama was the anti-Bush, an unpopular then incumbent.

Cain is keeping an open mind because he knows he doesn't have access to privileged information available to someone with intel authorization.

"I wish, in the debates, the moderator would ask something like, "What lessons should we draw from the foreign policy of Otto von Bismarck?" Or, "Who was the best pre-WWII British prime minister, and why?" Could Cain (or Bachmann or Perry) even begin to answer these questions?"

I guarantee one thing: after 3 years as President, Obama still doesn't know the answers to these pressing questions you raise.

Personally I pick Disraeli as pre-WW2 British PM.

"Go back to what he wrote in Foreign Affairs in 2007,"

You seriously (I mean SERIOUSLY) believe that Obama personally wrote that article?

Pull the other one.

It's not as if he hasn't got form with ghost writers, beginning with his own autobiography.

But I do think Obama had to have at least read it, just to endorse its contents.  Has Cain come remotely close to that?  

Saying "where to begin" kind of makes you sound like a condescending ass. So begin by not using that. JBrad is right. The "experts" just got us into Lybia and botched Egypt. I think a guy that doesn't pretend to be Caesar or Jesus is refreshing. Obama is more of a war monger than Bush. Did anyone expect that? Is that why he was voted in? Granted it is partly due to a projection of weakness and partly due to incompetence. And there is no sense there is any real direction other than what he thinks will get him re-elected. That's why we will be out of Iraq before the next election. Not because of any carefully thought out foreign policy. From drone killings to rendition and from Mexico to Libya. If he had an R in front of his name you guys would call him Darth Obama. Everything he criticized Bush for, he ran out and tried to top. It was like he wanted to see how big the media double standard would be for him. In response we just get from the talking heads "well look at silly Cain suggest he would need to consult with people". That sounds like an improvement to me? Maybe he would at least consult with CONGRESS.

I've never seen an author reply back to a comment that was posted in a mag. I wonder if he was just upset you criticized Mr. Obama or... was just upset you criticized Mr. Obama.

I stand corrected, he only performed a 179 degree turnaround on his signature issues. As a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst, China Division, I am not at all scared by someone that doesn't understand the complex nature of our disgusting foreign policies. We have thousands, if not millions of defense employees, and you don't think they could bring him up to speed on key issues in a short amount of time? If not, we really have a problem. We will have a Sec of State and thousands of diplomats, won't we? The President doesn't need to micromanage everything, just listen to their advice. Why else appoint them?

Cain has spent years working on monetary issues and I imagine you could ask him about trade issues with countries like China, just not how we will hegemon them. We saw McCain fall on his face because he knew very little about the economy. Cain may be the polar opposite, but with JD Gordan on Cain's side, I doubt we will see Cain falter like we have in the past. Even if he does falter on foreign policy, it's the economy, stupid; and that's something Obama seems to know very little about. When China, a communist country, is beating the US at their own free market game, maybe there is a problem and it's time to be a little introverted.

Thanks for the previous response. Even if we disagree, it's nice to know you read the boards.

I never said they were pressing issues, I only suggested them as the 1st two things that came into my head as example of questions that would require the candidates to actually think, rather than simply recite their pre-fab talking points.

Ron Paul is the only one who can speak to facts in the 9/11 report in regards to underlying causes of terrorist attacks, he's also the only one on the stage who believes in the humble foreign policy that Bush ran on in 2000. He's the only one smart enough to have left Iraq alone, based on bad/misleading intel.

He's also the only one who isn't such a dunderhead that he'd continue to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq, while our economy tanks and our infrastructure is compromised. He's also solid on the borders and illegal immigration--which, of course, is a serious national security issue that neither the current president nor the former did a damned thing about.

Remember Reagan? When Hezbollah elements attacked our forces there, he did the right thing--he got them out. No more sitting duck US soldiers--he didn't decide to bomb them just because.

We are militarily involved in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and now, Uganda. Our active military donates more to Ron Paul than **any other GOP candidate COMBINED.**

Why do you suppose that is? They want to come home and actually be a DEFENSIVE force, not an OFFENSIVE one. All this mess is not the result of conservative failings--it is because the deck is stacked with neoconservatives, who hail from the left wing and believe in constant warfare. They don't care about fiscal conservatism--hence the expansion of government under GW Bush (NCLB and Medicare part D are good places to start.)

How long until we collapse, economically, militarily and morally under that sort of leadership? We need serious change, not the status quo--and certainly not someone who hasn't a clue about economics and foreign policy--just look at the damage Obama's done in such a short period of time.

Cain's foreign policy with be neoconservative, just like Bush's, just like Obama's--war, war, war until our military is so weakened by our massive offensive measures, they can't actually defend us.

It's a neoconservative foreign policy. Ironically--based in Trotskyist philosophy (a subset of Marxism.)

Bush embraced it, Cheney drooled over it, Obama pretended to be abhorred by it--but they all follow it. As will Romney, Cain, Perry & Bachmann. Gingrich--hard to say with him, Paul--absolutely not.

Oh, and just Google "Bush bowing" and you'll realize how silly you're being in singling that out.

Not that I like Obama--not by a long shot. He's ramped up everything I disliked about Bush and then some.