December 23, 2018

"How about you just admit you hate the President, love war and have been wrong for the last twenty years on every part of foreign policy?"

Rand Paul put in a strong performance on "Face the Nation" this morning. Here's the full transcript. Excerpt:
MARGARET BRENNAN: You've been on a tweet storm this morning saying, President's decision to pull out of Syria and cut our troop presence in Afghanistan in half, you said "the entire foreign policy establishment of Washington, DC, who two years ago were swearing Trump was going to start multiple nuclear wars. Now they're mad because he is stopping two wars. How about you just admit you hate the President, love war and have been wrong for the last twenty years on every part of foreign policy?" Who are you referring to because the defense secretary and the top diplomat handling ISIS both resigned over these decisions?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: You know, I think that we should look at some of the statements of the people who are advocating that we stay in Afghanistan forever and that we also stay now in Syria with no sort of determined end. General Mattis, even General Mattis said that there's no military solution to Syria, and he's also said there's no military solution to Afghanistan. How do you think our young soldiers feel? I have members of my family that are going over there soon, how do you think they feel being sent to Afghanistan when your generals are saying there's no military solution? So I think the burden is really on Mattis and others who want perpetual war to explain why if there is no military solution we're sending more troops.... 

We've been there seventeen years. We think now we are going to take one more village and we'll get a better negotiated deal?... That was the strategy of Vietnam for years after year after year in Vietnam was to take one more village and we'll get a better negotiated deal. No, they waited us out and the Taliban are going to wait us out. They know we will eventually leave and leave we must. I mean I don't think we have enough money to be paying to build and rebuild and build and rebuild Afghanistan. The President is right and I think the people agree with him. Let's rebuild America. Let's spend that money here at home....

We took ninety-nine percent of the land [from ISIS], they're on the run, can the people who live there not do anything? We spent trillions of dollars arming the entire Middle East, arming Afghan army, can they not do anything? Do we have to do everything? We defeated ISIS. But now you have the-- the hawks in the administration and throughout Congress saying, "Oh, now we have to wait until Russia and Iran leave Syria." Well, that was never our goal and it's never going to happen. So those people are advocating for perpetual war....

That's what you call mission creep. The mission has now changed, that we're going to wait till Iran leaves and Russia leaves. Well, the President told them that's not his mission and that was never the mission. The mission was to wipe out ISIS and we did succeed. And the thing is it's incredibly bold to win a war and come home. That's what the people want. If you poll the American people, it's sixty to seventy percent of people ready to get out of Afghanistan. And I'll bet you the same of Syria if you ask the people. It's only the people in Washington, the armchair generals, that want to keep us at war forever and people, Americans, are tired of it. We want that money here at home and we want to create jobs, roads, bridges here at home not in Afghanistan.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The concern raised by people like Brett McGurk who-- who was the President's diplomat handling the anti-ISIS coalition is that if you move out too quickly, if you agree we're going to draw down, at least have a plan on how to do it. At least, do it in a way that doesn't abandon allies. And, in fact, he warned in his resignation letter that this could create a vacuum that would allow terrorist groups like the Islamic State to re-emerge and in other-- other words, we'll have to go back in a few years.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: That will always be true....That statement will be true in fifteen years. The place is a mess. I mean, they've been fighting each other for a thousand years. Sunni and Shia have been fighting each other since Battle of Karbala in 832 AD.... They're going to fight each other until the end of time. It's all of them. It's-- it's an inter-complicated mess that has to do with Sunni extremism versus Shia extremism, and also some other various battles in between. But if we wait until there's... no potential for anybody fighting each other when we leave, we will be there forever. But here is what we need to do. And here is the real problem, we have so politicized the relationship with Russia that there isn't a Democrat in the land that is for any kind of negotiation with Russian ally because they know it's an anti-Trump position to be heaping on Russia. Russia is a big player. If we don't talk to Russia about Syria, we will never come to a resolution. Iran is a player. We actually have to talk to Iran about... Syria, as well. Assad is a player. We... can't just say Assad is going to go. He won the war. These people have their head in the sand and they just want to send two thousand troops there. They become a trip wire to a possibility of a much-expanded war involving Russia and Iran. And that would be a huge mistake...  I don't think the American people want another big war in the Middle East.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The Pentagon and State Department say there are tens of thousands of ISIS fighters still in Syria. How can you credibly say mission accomplished? Do you think ISIS has been defeated?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: Right. I think the numbers are wildly inflated and nobody knows. I think there are maybe ten thousand so-called radicals. And these are radicals. They are in Idlib and they are surrounded by Turks, Syrians, Kurds others. And I don't think they're going anywhere. And right now there's not a lot of heated battles going on. But my question is why do American young men and women always have to lay our lives down? To the people of Iraq, are they incapable of doing anything? And here's the thing. Muslims need to ultimately police Muslim lands. When Americans are there and we kill someone who lives there, they see it as a religious affront and they see it as the Pagans have come to take their land and for everyone we kill, we create ten to a one hundred more. So it isn't working. We have-- have supplied them all with money we've given them uniforms we've given them weapons. They need to step up and they need to eradicate these violent people from their midst.

214 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 214 of 214
Ralph L said...

Alas, Chrome killfile doesn't work on the "Leave your comment" page, only the page from the original post title.

Hyphenated American said...

“Presidential scholars have consistently ranked Roosevelt as the best chief executive in the nation’s history for his handling of the Great Depression and World War II. ”

FDR was able to create a recession during the Great Depression... just look at what happened in 1938. It’s a common knowledge that the Great Depression ended when the ww2 started...

As for fdr being a great ww2 President - didn’t he miss Pearl Harbor? Wasn’t USA completely utterly unprepared for the ww2?

george said...

I think it might be time to acknowledge that while you can bomb a country into the Stone Age, you can't bomb one out of it.

The Middle East will be backwards and at war for as long as the people there consider a terrorist warlord like Mohammed to be the moral exemplar all men must strive to emulate. It is Islam which must be defeated, not the armies it inspires. Bush had it exactly backwards.

I don't think anyone outside of DC and the chattering classes will be upset to hear at Christmastime that the troops are coming home. And I don't think they will care on whit whether Trump consulted with those who would have tried to talk him out of it.

Ralph L said...

Wasn’t USA completely utterly unprepared for the ww2?

Some new and improved capital ships (carriers and battleships) were under construction, the latter of which weren't that useful. I don't know how hard he tried, but he needed to get Congress to pay for more and was unable to do so. We weren't prepared for WWI either, with a similar amount of combat already in progress, not to mention the European arms races before both.

Known Unknown said...

"And we will continue to be in a state of war -- with the need for active forward deployment of troops -- for the rest of our lives, given that this war has been going on for 1400 years."

Unless we are planning on turning the entire region to glass, we shouldn't be quibbling about with 2,000 radicals. Thanks to the President for this decision, the correct one.

Unknown said...

Like most of the Nation, I hate this show and it's nonsense network. Ratings back that up. Usually like me some Rand Paul.

I Callahan said...

The Middle East will be backwards and at war for as long as the people there consider a terrorist warlord like Mohammed to be the moral exemplar all men must strive to emulate. It is Islam which must be defeated, not the armies it inspires. Bush had it exactly backwards.

I wish George were wrong here, but he isn't. The above paragraph perfectly encapsulates the problem at hand.

Jim at said...

"What a laugh. No one marks your words. Most people just scroll right by them."

Case in point, it was this comment that made me scroll back up to see who it was responding to.

Yep.

Hyphenated American said...

“. I don't know how hard he tried, but he needed to get Congress to pay for more and was unable to do so.”

So, FDR was able to almost completely obliterate free market economy in the USA with the help of the DEmocrat party complete control of Congress, but he could not raise a dime to rearm the country? No, the man had priorities. FDR was no Churchill, he was a socialist, and he did not see Hitler as a threat.

Ralph L said...

FDR did secretly fight the Germans at sea a little, which might have been a factor in Hitler's monumentally stupid declaration of war.

Static Ping said...

That is a coherent argument. I'm still not sure if I am 100% sold on that argument, but Senator Paul has presented a coherent argument. Alas, that is a rarity these days. I am half shocked that Maddow and company have not declared that he should be deplatformed immediately.

Rusty said...

'As for fdr being a great ww2 President - didn’t he miss Pearl Harbor? Wasn’t USA completely utterly unprepared for the ww2? '

We were giving our military production to the British and Russians in the form of Lend Lease. Consequently we were ill prepared when war finally did arrive.
"If you think defense spending is expensive now wait til you need it and don't have it."

Achilles said...

This thread is an excellent Christmas present.

Hard to imagine anyone being more obviously hypocritical than pppt and Inga.

Orange man bad!

narciso said...

well yes, but victory forsaken, shows kennedy was misled by his staff who relied on Holbrooke, who relied on a Vietcong agent as a source, having lucein conein's men direct the execution of diem, was a fatal mistake, much like the soviets having amin, dispatched in Afghanistan,

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 214 of 214   Newer› Newest»