In defense of Gary Johnson's "Aleppo" question?

[Chathamization]

56. Again, this shows the superficiality of our foreign policy discussion

Whether or not Afrin is as important as Aleppo (given the current situation I'd say it's pretty important, but that's another discussion), it's something a candidate should know if they're putting together a competent strategy. But again, it seems people aren't interested in whether or not someone has a coherent Syrian policy or an in depth understanding of the issue. Does their level of ignorance match mine; is the candidate is keeping up with what's hot in the mainstream media.

Even just looking at Aleppo - many the articles and comments about this (even the original interview), show that many now talking about the importance of Aleppo have little understanding of what's happening there and it's significance. Ignorance is fine, as long as you send the right signals.

No, not 'disingenous', as the excerpt shows. His foreign 'skepticism' was was he claimed as a major difference from Clinton and Trump, so he was asked a question about foreign intervention.

Barnicle asked him about it after discussing the effects of the two parties and third parties. If they were discussing Syria it would be one thing, but it's not uncommon for people to get confused by something when someone suddenly switches topics. If we were talking about superdelegates and I typed "But what should we do about a LEPO?" I don't think anyone here would pick up what I was talking about.