Two longtime military correspondents, Tom Ricks and Michael Gordon, analyzed American foreign policy, in particular, the way the country's leadership handled our two most recent wars.
Ricks, a senior fellow at the Center for New American Security, argued that the war in Iraq was "absolutely not" worth what our country lost fighting there.
"We went to war on false premises," Ricks said. "We wasted billions and billions of dollars, enormous amounts, and it’s hard to see how the situation has radically improved."
Ricks' new book, The Generals, examines the America's military leadership from World War II through today. He maintains that both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were badly handled and much of the fault lies with the military and the culture of unaccountability.
"Being a general in the United States military is kind of like having tenure at a university. The only way they get fired is if they have a moral lapse, a zipper problem -- they embarrass the institution. But professional competence? Not a problem. They’ll take anybody. You don’t get judged on combat effectiveness anymore."
New York Times chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon, gave a window in to the administration's handling of the war in Iraq. He said that when President Obama took office, there was a "gap between the campaign rhetoric and what the Obama administration's actual policy was in Iraq."
Although he gives the administration credit for the complexity of their plan, he argues they "fell considerably short of what they themselves were trying to achieve in Iraq during his first term."
Watch the entire interview with Tom Ricks and Michael Gordon above to hear more from the two journalists including how the candidates are handling foreign policy on the campaign trail.