Rick Perry's presidential campaign, which is ending today, will almost certainly be remembered best years from now for the infamous "oops" moment, but he had some notable foreign-policy highlights as well. Here's a look back at the governor's greatest hits:

On his (not necessarily the smartest) team:

There’s not a person that’s been born yet that knows everything that’s going on, but you better have the ability to identify really good people. That’s how I’ve run Texas. For ten years. I’ve had very, very wise… They may not be the smartest ones. President Obama has got some really smart people around him; I just don’t know how wise they are.

On sending the military to Mexico:

“The way that we were able to stop the drug cartels in Colombia was with a coordinated effort,” Perry said. “It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of our border and to destroy their networks. I don’t know all the scenarios that are out there but I think it is very important that we work with them, to keep that country from failing.”

On what he would do if the Taliban obtained a nuclear weapon:

“Well, obviously, before you ever get to that point, you have to build a relationship in that region. And that’s one of the things that this administration has not done. Just yesterday we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with — and that’s the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country — so to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States.” 

“For instance, when we had the opportunity to sell India the upgraded F-16’s, we chose not to do that. [This was factually wrong. It was India that rejected the U.S. fighters.]We did the same with Taiwan. The point is, our allies need to understand clearly that we are their friends, we will be standing by there with them. Today, we don’t have those allies in that region that can assist us if that situation that you talked about were to become a reality.”

On China's "virtues":

“Listen, there are some people who made the statement that the 21st century is going to be the century of China and that, you know, we've had our time in the sunshine. I don't believe that. I don't believe that at all. As a matter of fact, you think back to the 1980s, and we faced a similar type of a situation with Russia. And Ronald Reagan said that Russia would end up on the ash heap of history, and he was right. I happen to think that the communist Chinese government will end up on the ash heap of history if they do not change their virtues. It is important for a country to have virtues, virtues of honesty. And this whole issue of allowing cybersecurity to go on, we need to use all of our resources. The private sector working along with our government to really-- standing up to cyber-command in 2010 was a good start on that. But fighting this cyberwar I would suggest is one of the great issues that will face the next president of the united states and we must win.”

On foreign aid:

“Listen, I think we’re havin’ an interesting conversation here, but the deeper one that the speaker makes a reference to is the whole issue of foreign aid…. The foreign aid budget in my administration for every country is gonna start at zero dollars. Zero dollars. And then we’ll have a conversation. Then we’ll have a conversation in this country about whether or not a penny of our taxpayer dollar needs to go into those countries.

On marines urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban: 

Listen, as — you know, I volunteered to wear the uniform of our country. And what bothers me more than anything, is this administration and this administration’s disdain all too often for our men and women in uniform. Whether it was what they’ve said about the Marines — now these young men made a mistake. They obviously made a — a mistake.
BAIER: You’re talking about urinating on the corpses?
PERRY: They — they made a — a mistake that the military needs to deal with. And they need to be punished. But the fact of the matter — the fact of the matter is this, when the Secretary of Defense calls that a despicable act, when he calls that utterly despicable. Let me tell you what’s utterly despicable, cutting Danny Pearl’s head off and showing the video of it.
(APPLAUSE)
PERRY: Hanging our contractors from bridges. That’s utterly despicable. For our president for the Secretary of State, for the Department of Defense secretary to make those kinds of statements about those young Marines — yes, they need to be punished, but when you see this president with that type of disdain for our country, taking a trillion dollars out of our defense budget, 100,000 of our military off of our front lines, and a reduction of forces, I lived through a reduction of force once and I saw the result of it in the sands of Iran in 1979. Never again.

On the Turkish government:

PERRY: And you go to zero with foreign aid for all of those countries. And it doesn’t make any difference who they are. You go to zero with that foreign aid and then you have the conversation about, do they have America’s best interest in mind? And when you have countries like Turkey that are moving far away from the country that I lived in back in the 1970?s as a pilot in the United States Air Force that was our ally, that worked with us, but today we don’t see that.

All in all, given the high expectations and money spent, the Perry campaign was pretty disappointing. (Although you have to be somewhat impressed with a politician who can earn condmenation from officials of two foreign governments without even winning his party's nomination.)

To give credit where it's due, aside from the non-starter idea of sending U.S. troops into Mexican territory, Perry had much more realistic and humane rhetoric on border security and immigration than many of his counterparts. It's unfortunate that in the current political climate, that was considered a liability.

Iowa fallout

After weeks of debate and fluctuating polls, we finally have some actual results from a GOP primary. Mitt Romney won the Iowa Caucasus with 24.6 percent, edging out surprise second-place finisher Rick Santorum by only eight votes. In his rambling victory speech, Romney took the opportunity to attack the president on national security. "Iran is about to have nuclear weaponry, just down the road here, and this president, what's he done in that regard? He said he'd have a policy of engagement. How's that worked out?"

The next day, Romney received an endorsement from Sen. John McCain, who said his former 2008 rival was committed, like Ronald Reagan, to a philosophy of , "Peace through strength."

Ron Paul came in third place in Iowa and promised to continue pushing his vision for a noninterventionist foreign policy. "Our foreign policy has been a mess and drains us both economically and our military forces," he said.

After a disappointing fourth-place finish, once frontrunner Newt Gingrich promised to continue to attack "Massachusetts moderate" Romney, (he also called Romney a "liar" in an interview) but took the opportunity to blast Paul's foreign policy views as "stunningly dangerous for survival of the United States."

Rick Perry, who came in fifth with 10.3 percent of the vote, despite spending more money than any other candidate in Iowa, is apparently staying in the race for now.

After essentially finishing last (Jon Huntsman didn't contest the caucuses) Michele Bachmann dropped out of the race, vowing to "continue fighting to defeat the president's agenda of socialism."

Santorum in the spotlight

As the latest "non-Romney" to emerge in the race, Santorum's foreign-policy views are beginning to receive more scrutiny. In particular, Santorum has staked out a position even more extreme than Gingrich on the legitimacy of Palestinian aspirations for statehood.  "All the people that live in the West Bank are Israelis, they're not Palestinians... There is no 'Palestinian,'" he told a questioner back in November. (Israel probably wouldn't actually be thrilled with this position, as it would entail full Israeli political rights for Palestinians on the West Bank.)

Santorum has also recently vowed to bomb Iranian nuclear sites if they are not opened for inspections, saying that President Barack Obama's inaction against the Iranian nuclear program risks turning the United States into a paper tiger.

Huntsman's last stand

Huntsman has essentially staked his campaign on Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, opting out of Iowa entirely and campaigning non-stop in the Granite State. "We have to do well in New Hampshire," he told CBS news this week. The Boston Globe endorsed Huntsman this week, pointing specifically to his foreign policy experience. "While other candidates point toward Cold War-style rejection and isolation of China, Huntsman promises deeper engagement. But he had the courage as ambassador to walk among protesters, drawing the ire of repressive Chinese authorities," the editorial read.

Nonetheless, recent polls show that the majority of New Hampshire voters, particularly front-runner Mitt Romney's supporters, which Huntsman was hoping to pick off -- are unlikely to change their mind before Tuesday.

A new strategy for the Pentagon

On Thursday, the president announced a new military approach which aims to trim roughly $450 billion from the defense budget by shrinking the Army and Marines, focusing more heavily on Special Operations and drone forces, and making a strategic "pivot" from the Middle East and Central Asia to the Pacific.

With the exception of Paul and Huntsman, the Republican candidates all oppose large-scale defense cuts. Romney has ridiculed the idea of a strategic shift to Asia in the past, saying, "President Obama seems to think that we're going to have a global century, an Asian century. I believe we have to have an American century, where America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world."

What to watch for

The candidates will meet for two final televised debates in New Hampshire on Saturday night and Sunday morning before voters head to the polls on Tuesday. Real Clear Politics' New Hampshire poll average shows Romney with a commanding 20 point lead over Paul, followed by Santorum, Huntsman, Gingrich, and Perry -- in that order.

Then it's on to South Carolina for the Jan. 21 primary, where Romney currently holds a 19 point lead over Santorum, his closest challenger.

The latest from FP

Scott Clement looks at why Huntsman's experience as ambassador won't help him win over skeptical GOP voters.

Joshua Keating says farewell, Michele and recounts Bachmann's "greatest hits" on foreign policy. Also, what's behind Santorum's strange fixation with Honduras?

David Kenner says Santorum's views on Israel could be "profoundly damaging to U.S. and Israeli interests."

Daniel Drezner argues that Paul would make an even worse president than Gingrich -- and that's saying something.

David Rothkopf wonders why Obama has been so modest as a communicator and lists some of the president's underappreciated successes he should be crowing about.

Peter Feaver criticizes the Paul campaign for having a soldier in uniform speak at a campaign event and says the Iowa results prove there will not be a crack-up in the Republican Party over foreign policy.

Paul gets his turn

Just days from the Iowa caucuses, polls show Congressmen Ron Paul surging into the lead. The libertarian has long been an annoyance for the Republican establishment, but Paul's success in the polls has brought with it the kind of negative press the congressman avoided when he was viewed as merely a fringe candidate. Much of the attention this week has focused on newsletters that were published in Paul's name during the 1990s, while he was out of office. (The newsletters were also an issue in the 2008 election after the New Republic ran a lengthy expose on their contents.)

In addition to disparaging comments about African Americans and gays, the newsletters contain incendiary language about Israel, describing it as "an aggressive, national socialist state." Another passage suggests that the 1993 World Trade Center bombings may have been the handiwork of the Israeli spy agency, the Mossad. Paul's views were already suspect among many Jewish Republicans, who declined to invite him to a major candidate forum in Washington earlier this month because of his support for cutting U.S. aid to Israel. In several interviews this week, Paul denied writing the newsletters or even being aware of their contents at the time.

Newt Gingrich, who has seen his fortunes in the polls fade as Paul has surged, took a shot at the new kid on the block this week, describing Paul's foreign-policy views as naïve. "This is a guy who basically says, if the United States were only nice, it wouldn't have had 9/11. He doesn't want to blame the bad guys," Gingrich said in a radio interview. "He dismisses the danger of an Iranian nuclear weapon and seems to be indifferent to the idea that Israel could be wiped out.  And as I said, I think the key to his volunteer base is people who want to legalize drugs."

Michael Cohen took on Paul's foreign policy in a piece for FP this week, arguing that "his entire philosophy is largely a renunciation of much of what Republicans believe about America's role in the world."

Romney comes out swinging on security

As the media frenzy focuses on Paul and Gingrich, Mitt Romney has been working to build his commander-in-chief credentials with a series of statements on foreign policy. Speaking to reporters on his campaign bus, he said he believes Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin "endangers the stability and peacefulness of the globe." Speaking just hours before terrorist bombings ripped through Baghdad, he described President Barack Obama's inability to secure an agreement to keep U.S. troops in Iraq as one of his "signature failures."

In an interview with Fox's Chris Wallace last weekend, Romney gave the president credit for giving the order for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, but then said that "any president would have done that." Critics immediately jumped on what appears to be yet another flip-flop from the candidate, who criticized candidate Obama in 2008 for saying he'd be willing to unilaterally order a raid within Pakistani territory. The Democratic National Committee  began running ads this week featuring comments from prominent Republicans including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, praising the president's handling of the bin Laden raid.

North Korea reactions

Several of the candidates issued statements this week in reaction to the death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. Romney called on China to "exert its influence" over its neighbor and take control of the North Korean nuclear weapons program. He also said that he hoped Kim's death would hasten the end of the North Korean regime. Former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman said Kim's death gives North Koreans "the best opportunity to get on a path towards a more free and open society and political reform." Rick Perry said the United States should "engage with China, and encourage Beijing to work towards a peaceful transition from a grim dictatorship to a free Korea," though the strength of his message was somewhat undermined by a press release referring to "Kim Jong II." To be fair, an "I" and an "l" look pretty similar ... and he's not the first candidate to think the late tyrant's name indicated that he was the second Kim Jong.

Obama's foreign-policy advantage?

Something of a consensus seems to be developing that -- considering the state of the U.S. economy -- that foreign policy could be the president's strong suit going into this election. CNN's Fareed Zakaria, writes that Republicans, facing two unpopular wars and unable to make traditional attacks of appeasement stick, are "effectively ceding the vast swathe of foreign policy to Obama." Conservative commentator Juan Williams notes that following the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Obama "has fulfilled a major campaign promise" and that we're facing an unusual 2012 political scenario, in which Republicans will find a Democratic presidential incumbent vulnerable on the economy but strong on national security.

Indeed, the president gets strong marks from voters on his handling of national security and terrorism. But as poll-watcher Scott Clement noted last week in Foreign Policy's Election 2012 Channel, Obama's numbers aren't quite as strong on international affairs generally, or the war on Afghanistan in particular.

Return of Iraq

The war in Iraq was a defining issue of the last election, and Obama got high marks from voters from wanting to end the campaign there, one he never supported. But if the current violence and political dysfunction in the country continue following the recent troop withdrawal, it could quickly reemerge as a major national security headache for the Obama administration. In addition to Romney, Gingrich blasted the withdrawal this week, saying, "I think we're going to find to our great sadness that we've lost several thousand young Americans and had many thousands more wounded undertaking a project that we couldn't do." Obama's 2008 opponent, Sen. John McCain, also weighed in, telling the American Enterprise Institute's Danielle Petka, "All the gains we have achieved in Iraq are now at risk, and the enormous expenditure of blood and treasure that those gains entailed are now in jeopardy of being viewed by history as sacrifices made in vain."

What to watch for

 For the next two weeks, it's all eyes on Iowa. Paul (27.5 percent) retains a slight lead in a recent University of Iowa poll, with Gingrich (25.3 percent) a close second, Romney (17.5 percent) in third, and Perry (11.2 percent) a distant fourth.

Huntsman, who has a laser-like focus on New Hampshire, has opted out of Iowa entirely, but for the socially conservative (and bottom-dwelling) candidates Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann a strong showing in the caucuses might be their last chance to save their campaigns. Some recent polls show Santorum climbing into fourth place in Iowa, and his campaign has blanketed the state with major advertising buys. Bachmann is still drawing enthusiastic crowds, but appears unlikely to climb out of the single-digits.    

The latest from FP:

Michael Cohen speculates on just what a Ron Paul foreign policy would look like.

Scott Clement says Republican voters aren't as worried about Iran as their candidates' rhetoric might suggest.

Joshua Keating discusses Huntsman's dubious claim to have done "more than anybody" to fight China's one-child policy.

David Rothkopf looks at the 14 biggest lies of 2011.Most of the 2012 candidates -- including the president -- are guilty of several of them.

The Israel Primary:

The main foreign-policy event of the campaign week was a forum hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition, during which six of the GOP candidates attacked the administration's policies toward Israel. Congressman Ron Paul, who favors cutting U.S. aid to Israel -- as well as every other country -- was not invited.  

Current front-runner and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich led the charge, accusing the White House of "one-sided, continuing pressure that says it's always the Israelis' fault no matter how bad the other side" and promised to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem -- a controversial move approved by Congress 15 years ago but resisted by the last three administrations -- on the first day of his presidency. Gingrich also vowed to appoint former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton as his secretary of state.

Gingrich's main rival, former governor Mitt Romney, devoted much of his remarks to Iran, saying "regime change is what's going to be necessary" and promising to indict President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the crime of incitement to genocide. Romney and Gingrich both called on the White House to fire Howard Gutman, the U.S. ambassador to Belgium who set off a firestorm of controversy with a speech that suggested a distinction between anti-Jewish sentiment in the Middle East and other forms of anti-Semitism.

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, the former U.S. ambassador to China under the Obama administration, said Gutman's comments reflected a deeper strain of anti-Israel sentiment within the administration. "These aren't speeches that are cooked up at the local level and at the embassy.... They go high up within the State Department," he said.

Texas Governor Rick Perry, attempting to assuage Israeli concerns about his pledge to drastically reduce foreign aid, promised that "strategic, defensive aid" to Israel would actually increase under his administration.

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann touted her personal connections to Israel, particularly her time volunteering on a kibbutz in 1974. She also said she does "not see presently that there is a road to statehood" for the Palestinians.    

Former Senator Rick Santorum compared U.S. policies toward Islamic extremists to actions taken by Britain before World War II. "For every thug and hooligan, for every radical Islamist, he has had nothing but appeasement," he said. Romney also accused the administration of appeasement with regard to Iran.

Obama: Ask Bin Laden:

Asked by a reporter to respond to the "appeasement" charge at a press conference on Thursday, a visibly testy President Barack Obama replied, "Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al Qaeda leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that."

Obama also defended his administration's record on Iran, saying it has "systematically imposed the toughest sanctions" on Tehran and that the country is more isolated than ever.

Gay rights becomes a foreign-policy flashpoint:

The Obama administration announced a new initiative this week to use foreign aid and international diplomacy to promote gay rights abroad, for the first time identifying LGBT issues as a major U.S. foreign-policy goal. Santorum and Perry, two of the more socially conservative candidates in the race, were quick to respond.

"Obviously the administration is promoting their particular agenda in this country, and now they feel it's their obligation to promote those values not just in the military, not just in our society, but now around the world with taxpayer dollars," Santorum told reporters in Iowa.

"This administration's war on traditional American values must stop. Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America's interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers' money," Perry said in a statement to supporters.

Perry's comments seemed to be part of his slumping campaigns attempts to reach out to socially conservative voters, and followed a TV ad in which the candidate lamented "there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

Huntsman backtracks on climate:

Huntsman, widely viewed as the moderate in the race despite a very conservative governing record, has distinguished himself from most of the candidates in the field by openly supporting the notion that human activity is causing climate change. "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy," he tweeted in August. But the candidate seemed to backtrack on that position in a speech to the Heritage Foundation this week, in which he argued that there "questions about the validity" of climate science and that there's "not enough information right now to be able to formulate policies" on global warming.

Huntsman joins Gingrich, Romney, and Paul in the group of candidates who once allowed for the human factor in climate change but have changed their tune when running for president.

What to watch for:

The candidates meet for two debates in Iowa this week, the first on Saturday night in Des Moines on ABC, the second on Thursday in Sioux City on Fox News. With Gingrich still leading the polls, expect other candidates to go on the attack.

On Monday, Gingrich and Huntsman will go head-to-head in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate on foreign policy and national security at New Hampshire's St. Anselm College. Gingrich, who has been openly critical of the format and moderating of previous debates (particularly when he was shunted to the side, before becoming a front-runner), has repeatedly expressed his desire for Lincoln-Douglas debates and has said he will challenge Obama to seven of them if he wins the nomination. Gingrich may be hoping that giving Huntsman a prominent platform may help him take moderate votes away from Romney in New Hampshire, where the former Massachusetts governor is still leading. Romney has declined Gingrich's invitation for a one-on-one Lincoln-Douglas debate.

The latest from FP:

Despite the hype surrounding this week's Jewish coalition event, pollwatcher Scott Clement says Israel won't actually matter all that much in next year's election.

Michael Cohen wonders why Obama is trying so hard to avoid the label "apologist-in-chief."

On Passport, Joshua Keating looks at an FP cover story by Gingrich from 2003 and the candidates' ambitious plans for their "first day in office."