Posted on 09/06/2014 10:32:19 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Though many claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan on foreign policy, too few look at how he really conducted it. The Iraq war is one of the best examples of where we went wrong because we ignored that.
In 1984, Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger developed the following criteria for war, primarily to avoid another Vietnam. His speech, "The Uses of Military Power," boils down to this: The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the U.S. or its allies are involved and only "with the clear intention of winning." U.S. combat troops should be committed only with "clearly defined political and military objectives" and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives and with a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress and only "as a last resort."
Much of the rationale for going to war in 2003 did not measure up to the Weinberger Doctrine, and I opposed the Iraq war. I thought we needed to be more prudent about the weightiest decision a country can make. Like Reagan, I thought we should never be eager to go to war. And now, 11 years later, we are still dealing with the consequences.
Today the Middle East is less stable than in 2003. The Iraq war strengthened Iran's influence in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. Sunni extremists backed by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar have filled the vacuum. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has taken over the cities of Mosul, Tikrit and is on the march to Baghdad.
While President Obama said Thursday he will not send "combat troops," he said he is sending 300
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
What a quisling. Sick & tired of this crap about how war was not the answer. The problem was that we didn't wipe out the terrorist element altogether. We should have fought as hard and as long as we needed to eradicate the threat.
Obama’s turning tail and running from Iraq and Afghan, will in the long run cost us more American lives than the Iraq war would have ever claimed. For those with a short memory or whose study of American history began and ended with the 60’s, we entered WWII because WWII came to our shores. For those who did not pick up on the lesson offered, if we do not instill the requisite fear in our adversaries, our adversaries will advance until an outside force stops them.
I have been alive for a while now and there have been times when foreign nations have made some crazy claims about their armies marching down our streets. ISIS is the first group that I believe is ruthless enough and crazy enough to actually attempt to bring war to our shores since WWII.
So Americans should not fret about losing their sons and daughters to a foreign war. This next war is coming to a street corner near you soon.
My name is Barack Obama and I endorse this message...
The first sentence is arguable but the second is factually untrue. The thing with either one of the Pauls is that, even if they get the data correct they invariably get the analysis - and consequently the conclusions - wrong.
It seems likely that avoiding another Marine barracks bombing would have been more on Weinberger's mind, since that had occurred the previous year and it hadn't been clear what we were doing in Lebanon.
He was drawing a lot of conservatives toward isolationism. But now that is pretty much done with recent events in the Middle East.
He's done.
One side massacres Christians. One side doesn’t.
But we can’t take sides.
It seems likely that avoiding another Marine barracks bombing would have been more on Weinberger's mind, since that had occurred the previous year and it hadn't been clear what we were doing in Lebanon."
Rather than defeat the Soviet Union, you wanted to begin getting mired in the Middle East at the end of 1983?
the just and righteous cause is the cause to CRUSH radical islam , throughout the Middle East , and force a reform of islam in general , everywhere else .
George Bush was right ; this is a war that might take a long time, But there is no other cause so worth fighting for , no other evil so worth fighting against .
The sooner we unleash our Armed Forces and military-industrial capacity to their full extent , without ridiculous , stupid enemy protecting Rules of Engagement , the better .
For some reason we have put the lawyers in charge of how our wars are prosecuted . Including electing them to the highest office . This insanity has to end . America needs to be led by warriors , not by lawyers . And the fight needs to be joined by ALL AMERICANS .
If you cannot sign on to this one , get out .
Rand Paul is quickly turning into the Republican Joe Biden.
Shhhhh.... don't let it get out but that was the case in the previous "civil war" there as well. Foreign funded, foreign soldiers including some from the West.
We weren't fighting AGAINST Iraq after the fall of Saddam.
Why did we assist in the murder of a POW named Momar Gaddafi, again? What was the threat to US interests? And why was no one prosecuted for abusing and murdering a POW on camera in that case? "Don't Shoot! Don't Shoot!" - famous last words of Gaddafi.
As I read the comments to this point it occurred to me the majority of posts neglected to consider we no longer hold bond drives to support our wars. Before we engage we might want to consider what small change we have remaining in the Treasury.
Oh, wait. Never mind. I’ve found the funding.
http://www.hasbro.com/monopoly/en_US/
Ta ta. I’m off to Burger King for my fifty-dollar Whopper made my way. Thanks to HASBRO bucks.
The government that came into power after the US invasion was Shiite, made up of exiles who’d spent the Saddam years in Iran. Including the current president.
In other words, yes, our invasion of Iraq strengthened Iran by turning Iraq from an enemy of Iran into an ally of Iran. In fact, Iraq because Iran’s closest ally.
If the goal is to crush radical Islam, George Bush was wrong to toppled Saddam (whose policy was to cruelly crush jihadis); and Obama was wrong to topple Gaddafi (who was crushing radical jihadis); Obama was also wrong to allow Mubarak to be ousted, because he too crushed radical Islamics.
Bush and Obama were both wrong. As a result, we have radical jihadis running wild in Iraq, and we had Benghazi happen in Lybia.
That says it all right there. That demands a reason, a strategy, a commitment, and a goal. None of which most of the idiots in congress or the populace understand.
Of course we should pick a side. How else will we know who we’ll be fighting next?
The headline isn’t accurate for the article, anyway. Paul never says in there that America “shouldn’t choose a side.”
Paul takes it as a given that the correct side is anti-ISIS.
What Paul says in the article is that there should be a coherent goal, mission, and strategy when and if Congress has a vote to declare war on ISIS.
It's awkward that the US created the vacuum by enabling indeed encouraging the overthrow of strong governments, then arming rebels to do it for the US. But we have to confront that and try to destroy what we created.
Rand Paul is insane, from all indications.
This is not about Civil War it’s Terrorists running amok in a country! Blast them to the oblivion!
Paultardation takes its toll, doo-dah, doo-dah.
Meanwhile, in America:
Cruz to Introduce Bill to Stop Americans Who Join ISIS From Returning to United States
Cruz.Senate.gov ^ | September 5, 2014 | Senator Ted Cruz
Posted on 9/6/2014 1:15:56 PM by SoConPubbie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3201227/posts
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Rand Paul's immigration speech...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
I don't know how you interpreted my comment that way. It's too bad that it took such a terrible loss in Beirut to make it clear that we were getting mired in the Middle East.
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.