Posted on 10/24/2017 8:10:21 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Rand Paul unloaded on Lindsey Graham today, in the way that only Twitter in the Trump Era can:
"You know you are in too many wars in too many places when even warmonger Lindsay Graham can't keep track anymore."
His comment was in reaction to the senior senator from South Carolina's stunning, but perhaps unsurprising, admission that Graham didn't know the U.S. had more than 1,000 troops in Niger in the war on terror.
If only he were a Reason reader, he might!
Paul's broadside is a substantive and stark reminder of how much the war on terror has transformed U.S. military policy and how far the Republican party has drifted from the heady days of 2013, when a veritable "civil war" seemed about to break out over non-interventionism's place in conservative philosophy.
Paul is absolutely right: the U.S. military is engaged in counter-terrorism operations, fighting too many wars in too many places around the world. And the almost complete lack of interest in a substantive engagement of foreign policy in the mainstream political debate compounds the problem.
Despite a U.S. military presence across West and Central Africa as well as Somalia, the only African country mentioned in any of the presidential debates was Libya, the site of one of the Obama administration's greatest foreign policy blunders, borne of needless interventionism.
Barack Obama eventually admitted the haphazard nature of the intervention was his administration's "worst mistake." Notably, Hillary Clinton, his first secretary of state and the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, avoided drawing any lessons or admitting any mistakes.
Earlier this month, when news of the U.S. fatalities in Niger first broke, I predicted the U.S. war in West Africa would quickly recede from the public consciousness again. But for President Trump botching public and private remarks about the dead soldiers, it probably would have.
Before the election, I suggested Trump might be a less alarming candidate than Clinton because "at least with Trump you might have a Congress motivated to reassert its powers vis-a-vis the executive branch."
Paul and the other members of Congress skeptical of America's never-ending war on terror and string of aimless interventions have an opportunity to use Trump's clumsiness over the Niger deaths to expose the country's unchecked and—judging from Graham's reaction—largely unknown nature of this ever-expanding war.
Lot’s of people here on FR who cheer every interventionist policy that comes down the pike. The sad reality is that good Christian men and women (who have traditionally formed the bulk of the U.S. military) are sent to off to die for the militantly secular, globalist policies of elites.
Having troops in 150+ countries isn’t defense, it’s empire.
No declaration of war, no troops. Let other countries pay their way. The South Koreans -sure great folks and allies - but they make enough money they can pay for their defense, dammit.
The entirety of the rest of the world is not worth the blood of one American soldier or one taxpayer cent; no more foreign aid and only the minimum of bases.
“No declaration of war, no troops. Let other countries pay their way. The South Koreans -sure great folks and allies - but they make enough money they can pay for their defense, dammit.
The entirety of the rest of the world is not worth the blood of one American soldier or one taxpayer cent; no more foreign aid and only the minimum of bases.”
Agree with your last sentence. But Korea is an entirely different matter since NK does, or will have shortly, the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon directly onto our soil. And for me, it goes way beyond getting countries who do not constitute a direct threat to pay us for their defense. We should not be mercenaries either. Our youth deserve to live out their entire lives as opposed to giving them up in some African $hit hole country. Or the ME as well. And if we have to take out NK, no “follow on nation-building.” Feed them in the short term, but that’s all.
It irritates me that President Trump only receives about 5% positive coverage on the network news. It irritates me even more that almost all of that is when he flexes his military muscle. I am prior-service and strongly pro-military, but I am skeptical of using our military in many of these situations.
“Trump seemed presidential” just because he bombed someone is not what I want to see on the news. All I want to see is that he bombed someone, who he bombed, and why.
Big media knows big war equals big ratings.
The US set up a drone base in Niger, supposedly targeting whatever Islamic faction was in the disfavor of Obama’s favorite faction at the time. How could anyone imagine that such a base wouldn’t be targeted and need to be defended by more than a few security guards?
I imagine there are many interventionist loose ends from Obama’s tenure that need cutting.
Is this title misleading? I thought throwing shade for someone meant to defend that person or deflect for that person. Rand did just the opposite.
So we sell SK some nukes:-)
Yep, either take them out now of let the Japanese and South Koreans do it, ‘nuke now, pay later’ although Japan could probably have a working nuke and the ability to deliver it by this weekend, if they don’t already.
Good post, but I really question just what rationale a “good Christian” uses when allowing himself to be used as a tool for a radically secular empire.
Big media disgusts me.
His comments regarding “Trump's clumsy comments” disqualifies his opinions on much deeper issues.
All you jerks on this thread seem to forget the Taliban and bin laden managed to attack us on 9/11. Until you brainiacs have a better solution without depending on light weight authors to support your opinions I will pass on your recommendations.
“Shade” seems to be the meme word of the week.
Anyone have an English translation?
How long until Lindsey Graham and John McCain start agitating for sending US troops to protect Rohinga Muslims in Myanmar?
Good post, but I really question just what rationale a “good Christian” uses when allowing himself to be used as a tool for a radically secular empire.
______________________________________________________
Most join the military when they are young. They join for many reasons, but one popular reason is “Defending Freedom”. This noble attitude can be exploited by interventionist who use the military as an instrument of globalist business interests. It really is the job of mothers and fathers to start sobering up their children. Otherwise generations of social conservatives will shed their own blood doing precisely the opposite of strengthening U.S. independence and sovereignty.
No offense, but anyone who is that stupid should be disqualified from military service.
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.