Skip to comments.As Iraq burns, Rick Perry condemns "isolationist" Rand Paul
Posted on 07/13/2014 10:12:41 PM PDT by South40
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Islam is an example of how war will come looking for us even if we don’t go looking for it.
Rand Paul is not blind to the reality of terrorism. However Republicans must do a careful reflective assessment on how best to deal with it. Clearly in retrospect our long involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan have been costly failures that have done almost nothing to enhance the long term security of the American people. Ron Paul to his credit courageously stood up and opposed our invasion of Iraq. Even more remarkable he spelled out in chapter and verse just what the eventual actual outcome would be. This intervention and the consequences Paul predicted and came to pass more than anything else made the disastrous election of Obama possible. Let’s admit mistakes were made and there are better ways to deal with terrorism and the chronic chaos and crisis in Islamic culture.
So what is the better way to fight terrorism?
There are thousands of dead Americans because of the invasion of Iraq. What did they die for? Prior to the invasion, Iraq was the arch-enemy of Iran. After the invasion, Shias took control of Iraq, and Iraq became Iran’s closest ally in the whole world.
Before the invasion, Saddam ruled over a secular government. After the invasion, Iraq adopted a constitution that begins with saying the Koran is the fount of all law.
Before the invasion, Saddam had his boot on the necks of the jihadists. After the invasion, that boot was removed, and a civil war between shias and sunnis has been raging ever since.
Before the invasion, Christians worshipped safely in Iraq. After the invasion, it’s been a continuous war on Christianity, and the religion has almost been wiped from the country.
You say all this was worth 4500 AMerican lives - and more than a trillion dollars in additional American debt (most of it borrowed from China)?
So Rick Perry wants to send US ground forces back to Iraq? Geeze, that’s dumb. In fact, even with those “smart man’s” glasses that he’s taken to wearing, he still doesn’t come across as very bright.
The only things we did wrong in Afghanistan and Iraq were a) not turning Afghanistan into a sheet of glass and, b) not turning Iraq into a sheet of glass.
Total war is the only answer. Otherwise, it ain’t worth the blood and treasure. The Stone Age ain’t good enough for them.
Your rant is spot on! However, I believe Gov. Perry is testing the waters for another presidential run. I have some issues with him, but he’d sure be a heck of a lot better than the marxist-in-chief who currently squats in our WH.
Governor Mumbles is not known for making wise choices. In fact, just the opposite is true.
Unfortunately there are millions more willing to take their place. Our leaders must come to the realization that Islamic culture is simply not compatible with the institutions, values and practices of the West that emanated from the enlightenment. When confronted with this modernity, Muslim countries descend into chaos and violence. The US when it involves itself in their affairs then becomes the focus of their bitter resentments. Our leaders have to realize they are not “just like us”. There can be no “multiculturalism” domestically.It should not be confused with tolerance. Hostile elements must be excluded and removed from America. American must deal with increasingly chaotic Muslim countries in a realistic manner that actually serves the security concerns of the American people. It also means that the capabilities of the CIA and other services must be restored.
“What did they die for? “
Easy. They died because Republicans didn’t have the guts to fight a war and let Democrats run it by committee.
Wrong. The GOP - Bush - succeeded in what they aimed for: deposing Saddam. They toppled the guy who was Iran’s enemy, and established a Shia gov’t that is Iran’s friend.
That’s what we accomplished. Utter stupidity.
Oh, and it also led to the election of Obama, because the American people turned against Bush and the Iraq disaster.
We can't force democracy on other countries, because they don't have enough invested in it when it starts to go South.
No more American blood for people who won't give their own to defend their own country.No more nation-building for those unwilling to do their own heavy lifting.
We're going to see, to one degree or another, people bringing parts of Middle astern culture and religion back to the US and incorporating it into their lives, and the lives of those around them.
Does Rick Perry want our troops back in Iraq?
I’m not wrong. The GOP allowed the Dems to run a war and set ROEs. Then soldiers died because of them. Look it up. Ask their families and other surviving soldiers.
Had Bush done what he said, Iraq would be a different place. He caved as always to Dem whining about proportional response and casualties and The Holy Mother Sheehan.
Bush got the government he wanted in Iraq. The current president was Bush’s choice. He’s a Shia. He was living in IRan, as guest of the Iranian gov’t, when Saddam was ruling Iraq.
Saddam was Iran’s arch-foe. And Bush decided that we needed to borrow $1 trillion and shed the blood of thousands of American soldiers, to topple him, Bush was a disastrous president - which is why the GOP wouldn’t even show Bush in prime time during the last two Republican Conventions. They know Americans can’t stand him.
As I said, if he has done what he SAID.
He didn’t. Perhaps this mess was his intent. Perhaps not. But had he done what he said, this mess would not exist. And America HAD the power to do it. He just caved in on the WILL.
Right you are. Sadly also, they men are both considered front runners for the GOP nomination.
If those two buffoons are being served at the Republican clown buffet in 2016, I’m ordering the lasagna.
I wasn’t aware La Raza Rick sent the invaders home.
Nor was I. To my knowledge he has done little more than make the rounds on television and whine. I guess we should give him credit for sending the Texas guard to help process those entering this country ILLEGALLY. The Perry faithful will remind us if we don’t. But in reality, Perry has done little more than yap about it. In other words, he has been his usual worthless self.
I am an American and I like him. In fact, I was at a couple of speeches he gave in Baghdad during those years and thousands of Americans there appeared to like him. Don’t believe everything your read or hear in the MSM. He may not have been the best President ever but I still like him and so do many of the Americans I know. I was in Iraq for a few years. I saw the violence go from almost nothing, to very heavy and back to almost nothing after the surge. The truth is that we had the thing under control and Obama threw it away.
Worthless. Yup. That sums up La Raza Rick in a nutshell.
That’s the way I see it as well
So Rick Perry wants to send US ground forces back to Iraq? Geeze, ...
Perry did not say that. You’re almost as bad as the liberal media with that kind of spin.
Perry disagrees with Rand Paul’s idea that the US should become isolationist.
You said a lot there but did not say what the better way is to fight these people
No more American blood for people who won’t give their own to defend their own country.No more nation-building for those unwilling to do their own heavy lifting.
Exactly! ...I’m not an isolasionist like the Pauls, but the US needs to stop trying to intervene in conflicts within or between other countries. We need to concentrate on protecting ourselves, because Obama has severely cut our military and border security.
I voted for him, but the so-called “compassionate conservative” Bush who pushed the “democracy building” meme and pushed for the “shamnesty” bill in ‘06-07 really helped to kick-start the major foreign policy and domestic security failures we are now experiencing.
Islam is isolationist, Mexico is Isolationist... Commercialist extremists in America better wake the frack up.
All the rino pubs are doing is encouraging the isolationism of. Mexicans, islam and intransigence of radical democrats.
This delusion is not going to end well.
This is like a jew being told he is isolationists with Nazis...
First....Rick Perry...I would rather be an Isolationist and Protectionist for the USA than a Globalist and Communist...Perry is the latter
We have more problems with our Southern border than we do w Iraq and Middle East. Its time to be Pro-American and defend our borders
Rick Perry again all hat and no cattle....
You’re correct. The GOP and GWB let Dems determine how to run war
And, GW Bush lack commitment to win...many times he uttered “Islam is a religion of peace”
I doubt Patton, Eisenhower, were mumbling “Nazis are a party of peace” during WW II
What exactly is doofus attempting to prove by complaining about another doofus in the party? Doesn’t Perry have a boarder to manage?
First step is identifying the actual enemy: islam.
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.
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.
I have never heard of a realist. I try to pay attention.
I have no use for Paul and would never vote for him. He is not a republican, I believe he is an isolationist and I would never support that position.
But you do what you want
I liked these bums in gizmo. It was a good place to store them awaiting a trial. Putting these people in a US prison where they can recruit the weak minded invites more trouble
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.
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?
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 does not think the U.S. should be isolationist. Youre 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?