As Iraq burns, Rick Perry condemns "isolationist" Rand Paul

Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, came down firmly on the hawkish side of the Republican national security debate Saturday, saying "isolationist" figures like Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., are "blind" to the threat posed by terrorism.

"I can understand the emotions behind isolationism," Perry wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post. "Many people are tired of war, and the urge to pull back is a natural, human reaction. Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further."

It is callous to say the number of deaths was insignificant, but in comparison to say the invasion of one of the Pacific Islands, that is true. Deaths as a measure of success or failure is not really meaningful.

Both wars were successful in that the enemy was eliminated.

What has happened since is the result of internal conflict prety much submerged by the eliminated enemy. Since the process is ongoing, it is not meaningful to analyze the current stage as failure.

The analysis also fails to recognize that the primary enemy to America and the region is Iran. Iran is being contained. The events in the Tigress Euphrates vlley are not good for Iran.

"So what is the better way to fight terrorism"

Previously, terrorism was considered a crime and dealt with as a matter of criminal justice, but that changed under Bush.

Because the Taliban would not turn over bin Laden, we said any nation that harbors terrorists would be considered terrorists, which allowed the invasion of Afghanistan. But, because of a FOIA document released in 2010, we learned that negotiations between the Paki ISI and the Taliban over the turn over of bin Laden were ongoing. Bush said no more talk, we are going in.

So the question is law enforcement versus military intervention, or how much of each.

So looking at Gitmo detainees, how many were a result of law enforcement and how many were a result of military activity. And not just the numbers of each, but how valuable were each as a source of intelligence. Then you need to recognize that another nation(like Pakistan) may not be willing to use their law enforcement or military to apprehend. Or, did Paki know all along that bin Laden was living there.

Often it just boils down to foreign policy doctrine. How much do we depend on diplomacy, military intervention, and/or financial strength. Perry is talking the NeoCon line and Paul is trying to avoid sounding like an isolationist. Rand Paul is masquerading as a Realist, but his votes in the Senate Foreign Relation Committee are giving him away. Plus, Paul keeps criticizing NeoCons, especially Cheney.

Meanwhile, Hillary(Liberal Interventionist) is watching this and has hired NeoCon Fred Kagan as an advisor. If Paul's polling numbers stay high or he gets the GOP nomination, she will run a hawkish, interventionist campaign.

McCain ran as a NeoCon and Obama ran as a Realist, and many GOP Realists backed Obama. Romney tried project that NeoCons and Realists would have equal standing in his administration, but it became obvious that the NeoCons would control, so many GOP Realists backed Obama in 2012. Of all the GOP candidates in 2012, Huntsman was the only Realist.

Perry has a lot of gall. The southern borders are wide open and God knows who is pouring through. Perry has done NOTHING to stop this. How many killers, rapists, and terrorists have waltzed into Texas on Perry's watch.

"I have never heard of a realist"

Henry Kissinger(Real Politik) is a Realist. The "Wise Old Realists" are republicans Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft plus democrat Zbigniew Brzezinski. Today, the top Realists in the Senate are Bob Corker(R) and Diane Feinstein(D)

Under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush the Realists were most influential but under Clinton the Liberal Interventionists rose to power and under Bush the NeoCons rose to power.

So we call these Liberal Interventionists and NeoCons Idealists or Wilsonian Idealists because they are big on humanitarianism, nation building, and spreading democracy.

Combined, the Liberal Interventionists and NeoCons are very powerful. The NeoCons have been very successful at purging both the Isolationists and Realists from the GOP.

OK. Having said all that how do you answer the neo isolationists who sat that sixty years of American involvement in the Mideast has been detrimental and a disaster for American security. We have made the Muslims our mortal enemies.That America really never had a problem with oil flow since the sellers would wither if they did not receive hard currency. Then how do you answer people who argue that given the Holocaust and being the moral superpower, the US had no choice but to support and protect Israel. Can the US disengage, not longer involve itself in the region’s affairs and still consider itself a moral force for good?

Its all more complicated than that.

Your phrase "sixty years of American involvement in the Mideast" is accurate but you could also say that the west has had a Mideast policy that dates back to when Salidin united the Shia and Sunni to drive out the first crusade.

Or, you could say because the Ottoman Empire joined the wrong side in WW1, the west was able to redraw the entire region to facilitate getting to the oil.

Or, you could specifically mention the Carter Doctrine. Or the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

No doubt the US has a moral or cultural obligation towards Israel, but Israel's geographic location has/had great significance during the cold war period and the post cold war period.

“Iran is being contained.”

Uh, our invasion of Iraq created a bosom-buddy ally to Iran right next door. Iraq used to be Iran’s enemy. We overthrew the gov’t of Iraq that was Iran’s enemy and installed a shiite-dominated government run by people who lived in Iran, as Iran’s guests, when Saddam ruled Iraq. So now, Iran and the gov’t of Iraq - the gov’t we put in - are strong allies.

Rand Paul’s idea that the US should become isolationist.

Rand Paul does not think the U.S. should be isolationist. You’re almost as bad as the liberal media with that kind of spin.

Regarding Iraq, he only thing Paul has ruled out is a re-invasion of Iraq. If Perry is criticizing Paul on Iraq, the only logical inference is that Perry supports re-invadng Iraq. Do you support re-invading Iraq, or do you agree with Sen. Paul that it's not a wise idea?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.