I strongly supported the Cold War, a war worth fighting and in which I fought as a volunteer (1LT - 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam). In my adult lifetime, the only wars I've opposed were in Bosnia and Iraq, neither of which were any of our business and destined to fail. Peacekeeping and nation building aren't in our line and shouldn't be. US forces should be used to defend the US and shouldn't be wasted wandering around the world looking for ancient wars and ethnic hatreds to waste our troops lives on.
If a US President wants a Nobel Prize he can win it with a persuasive letter ending hostilities or do without it.
You are ignorant of history and doomed to repeat the mistakes of leaders like Neville Chamberlain.
Peacekeeping and nation building are what solved the perpetual wars on the European Continent that stemmed from anicent wars and ethnic hatred.
You may think defeating Germany and Japan were a waste of our troops lives, but I don't.
“Allowing the Army and Marine Corps to be ground down in a voluntary, fool’s errand of a war isn’t something I find a lot of enthusiasm for.”
The question is, how accurate is your description?
If it turns out that the missing WMD we KNOW once existed in Iraq are raw chemical, biological or nuclear materials now in the hands of terror network, used to make dirty bombs for U.S. cities, or that removing the Hussein regime happened to stop that event from becoming a reality, would you have enthusiasm for the mission then?
As a veteran, you should know a few key points.
1) Intelligence gathering is the imperfect task of learning that which the other side is working just as hard to hide. Not even France, Germany or Russia, all of whom blocked UN authorization for the mission, had any different intelligence than we did. They were just profiting by keeping Hussein in business, so they didn’t care.
2) There are only two forms of defense.
a) Hunker down, fortify the fort and wait for the attack.
b) Pursue the enemy before they can attack.
As a veteran, I’m shocked that you miss the obvious?
You clearly aggreed with a number of wars Paul wouldn't engage in.
You're misstating his position, he isn't solely opposed to nationbuilding, he advocates a complete withdrawl of US troops from the region, and presumably all foreign basing.
Regarding the middle east, we withdraw from Iraq, Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, clearly no significant sea or air presence. We aren't nationbuilding in those places, we're not looking for ancient hatreds, we're protecting our supply of oil. A concern Paul would let the markets and producers solve, there being no such thing as hatred/religion based terror. Once we're gone, the Iranians and wahabbis will be fine. They're rational, after all, and deterred by our nuclear arsenal, which is why a nuclear Iran isn't a threat.
Personally, I think the power vacumn will be filled, perhaps even by the Soviet bear and not to our advantage.
I'm curious, though it's not a reason to keep troops in Iraq, would you agree with Paul's analogy that there was no slaughter in Southeast Asia as some predicted after our withdrawl?
I'd like to wholeheartedly say "Thank you!", for both your service and your statement.
-------
I never could figure out how we became the world's Big Brother.
:-)