Fox News:

GABBARD: I know one issue that's on the top of my mind if I can bring it up here is what's happening right now in Syria. What's happening in the Middle East. We just heard news yesterday about the administration dropping 50 tons of weapons in Northern Syria.

We have no confidence to whose hands those weapons are going into. All we do know is that they will end up in the hands of one stripe of Islamic extremist or another because these are the people who are fighting to overthrow Assad whether it's al-Qaeda, al-Nusra or these other Islamic extremist groups.

...

GABBARD: I'll be watching tonight, Greta. And I want to mention one more issue that I have been really vocal about within Congress. And that is the issue of the Kurds who have been our most effective ground fighting force in the fight against ISIS, both in Iraq as well as in Syria.

We've got a situation here where Turkey has been targeting these very same Kurds. They have been targeting and dropping hundreds and hundreds of bombs, attacking these ground fighters who have been those, who have been most effective against ISIS.

The fact that the administration has stood silently by and allowed this to happen, including NATO, I think it's important for those candidates on the stage tonight to address this situation and to address how they will approach this and taking action.

So sounds like Gabbard backs supporting the Kurds as our proxy ground force to fight ISIS, and leave Assad in place and not supply any rebels in Syria. Should we be giving weapons to Kurds, and what happens if they end up in the wrong hands (ISIS, Al Qaeda) like weapons to other groups, or used by the PKK against Turkey as they've had a long-standing insurgent war? And what effect will supporting Kurds more, including I presume with weapons, have on our relationships with Mideast countries, including Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Israel?

Of course the Kurds aren't in all the places where ISIS is, such as deeper in Syria - do we find another proxy ground force for those areas, or accept rule by ISIS there, or support Assad's efforts to eradicate them, and how does that relate to Assad's and Putin's attacks on the Syrian opposition in many of the same areas?

I don't quite find a "non-interventionist" principle here - I see it as an argument about backing the wrong horse.

What do you think, Lulu? Seems Tulsi wasn't very happy with negotiating a peace deal over nukes with Iran either:

We do have real threats that we're facing, a few of which include this negotiation with Iran but also really the confusion around what is Iran's status. We have the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper omitting Iran and Hezbollah from the list of threats to our country for the first time in a long time and we also have Iran's growing influence with their Shia militia and their troops on the ground growing really in Iraq and the ground that they are controlling as well as in Yemen and in other places. 

So, there seems to be really a lack of coherent strategy with regards to how we as the United States are dealing with Iran as we look at this threat of nuclear armed Iran as well as this threat of Islamic extremists like ISIS, like al Qaeda, like Boko Haram who really it should be no surprise that they are training together again because it's less about the name of a specific group, the common theme here is that these are radical Islamic extremists conducting violent terrorist activities and until we recognize and understand who they are, how they are operating, then we're not going to be able to have a coherent winning strategy to defeat them.

Hard to see how she fits your foreign policy ideals - from the National Review, "Since taking office in January 2013, Gabbard has cultivated relationships with conservative national-security and defense experts, particularly those from AEI, an institution known for churning out research advocating a muscular foreign policy."   Hmmmm, aren't those guys including Michael Ledeen and Richard Perle why we're in Iraq in the first place?

Here she's worried that deploying US fighters to the Turkish-Syrian border could cause "nuclear war" - maybe she's just unhinged? The more I read, the more I'm amazed - was better when I thought she was just complaining about number of debates.