Rick Perry wades into the intra-Republican foreign policy debate with the most predictable argument imaginable:

Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further.

That’s why it’s disheartening to hear fellow Republicans, such as Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), suggest that our nation should ignore what’s happening in Iraq. The main problem with this argument is that it means ignoring the profound threat that the group now calling itself the Islamic State poses to the United States and the world [bold mine-DL].

Perry’s argument is the usual hawkish combination of threat inflation, fear-mongering, lazy references to “isolationism,” and stale Reagan nostalgia. He talks about a “profound” threat to the U.S. and the entire world from a jihadist group when it is no such thing, and hopes that his readers will be so alarmed by this that they won’t pay attention to how shoddy his argument is. Perry is engaging in the same behavior that the former head of MI6 recently criticized: he is helping to give groups like the Islamic State the attention they crave, and he is grossly exaggerating the danger they pose to the U.S. and its allies. The governor’s analysis relies on blurring the differences between competing jihadist groups and their goals to frighten the public into assuming that any similar group that emerges represents a major security threat to the U.S.

Since Perry’s assessment of the threat is wrong, it is no wonder that he wants the U.S. to respond to it by making unnecessary commitments. It goes without saying that Perry makes no attempt to persuade that the measures he proposes will have any desirable effect. In all likelihood, the “meaningful assistance” he demands, which includes airstrikes, will help to make the U.S. more of a target of the Islamic State than it currently is, and it will make the U.S. a party to a sectarian war on the side of an abusive government. That has nothing to do with defending Americans or U.S. interests, and it’s telling that Perry thinks he can dismiss this glaring flaw with standard bromides about “isolationism” and freedom.

Then again, no one would think that Perry should be trusted on foreign policy. Based on what little he had to say about it during his last presidential campaign, he showed reflexive hawkishness that was almost second to none. More recently, he has gone out of his way to prove himself to be an enthusiastic “pro-Israel” hawk. The more interesting thing about the op-ed is that he seems to take for granted that supporting an aggressive foreign policy will be good for his political prospects. He repeatedly attacks Sen. Paul by name in the piece, and wants to make himself appear as a ready-made hawkish alternative. It’s not all that surprising, but it is a somewhat odd choice to identify himself so strongly with aggressive policies. This not only badly misreads what most Americans want from their would-be presidential candidates, but it reflects how oblivious Perry is to the changing attitudes among Republican voters about U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts.