among the things I truly hate . . .

. . . are the times that I have to agree with Pat Buchanan.

and in yet another unsurprising obama-era military intervention . . . .

Will Rogers, who apparently knew President Obama was coming, once said,

Now you can't pick up a paper without reading where our Marines have landed to keep some nations from shooting each other, and if necessary we shoot them to keep them from shooting each other. 

Guess what?  We're now apparently sending troops to Nigeria:

U.S. troops are on their way to Nigeria to help fight Boko Haram, in yet another newfangled military intervention into Africa. Boko Haram are an Islamic terrorist group, but its not clear what danger they’ve ever presented to America. Nevertheless, this new war is not much different from the Obama administration’s other martial adventures in the region, in Somalia with al Shabaab, in Uganda with the Lord’s Resistance Army, and beyond.

mitt romney panders on foreign policy. it can be outsourced to Israel.

Not much point in dicussing this seriously, since Mitt will likely have changed his position by the time you make a comment.

Still, this could reduce the deficit, as Mitt might not even need a Secretary of State, since Israel's already got one:

It seems that a President Romney will allow the Israeli government to decide American policy toward that country. The free daily newspaper Israel Hayom — a media outlet closely associatedwith right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — asked Romney if, as president, he would ever consider moving the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In his answer, Romney made some astonishing claims. First, that his policy toward Israel will be guided by Israeli leaders; second, on the Jerusalem issue, he’d do whatever Israel tells him to do; and third, he does not think the United States should take a leadership role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

ROMNEY: The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don’t seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel’s leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that’s something I’ll be inclined to do. But again, that’s a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don’t think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.

one of the only things that will ever get us out of Afghanistan: China gets into Pakistan

The old men in Bejing have many faults, but like the old men who used to inhabit the Kremlin they know that nuclear war on the Indian subcontinent would spoil everybody's day.

So, finally, China is stepping up as a regional power (rather than use us as military contractors in Afghanistan) and seeking bases in Pakistan.

This is a good thing.  Repressive as they may be at home, the geezers in Bejing and the USA have a common interest in regional stability there, and if the price of us getting rid of that obligation is that China gets Pakistan, I'm OK with that.

India, of course, will not be thrilled.