America Shouldn't Choose Sides in Iraq's Civil War

Online WSJ ^ | June 19, 2014 7:12 p.m. ET | Rand Paul

[SoConPubbie]

Obama has made mistakes but so did Bush by invading. There's no good case for U.S. military intervention now.

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

[ansel12]

Huh? Reagan didn’t get mired in the Middle East, the Granada attack was already launched when the Marine garrison was bombed, and he stayed focused on the Soviet empire, and brought it down, much to everyone’s shock and dismay.

[wideminded]

the Granada attack was already launched when the Marine garrison was bombed

Actually the Grenada attack was launched two days later.

Reagan didn’t get mired in the Middle East

We were mired enough to have had troops in Beirut for over a year and to have over 300 killed and wounded.

It is interesting that the Wikipedia article on the bombing points out that Weinberger had advised against stationing Marines in Lebanon.

[ansel12]

Reagan didn’t get mired in the Middle East by letting the bombing redirect his administration’s focus, instead he stayed focused on the USSR, which threatened America’s very existence and the entire world, regardless of what differing opinions his advisors and staff personally held, from moving in more troops to fight a war of revenge, to never having had any there in the first place as part of the international peacekeeping force, the MNF.

The Grenada attack had already been launched when the bombing took place, and less than 47 hours later, the Army was in ground combat at Point Salinas airport.