Posted on 07/27/2013 1:46:41 PM PDT by Route797
In the last month, conservatives looking for a possible 2016 presidential candidate with a serious approach to defense and foreign policy were starting to wonder if they would be stuck with outliers rather than frontrunners. The only reason why people like former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton and Rep. Peter Kingmen who are respected voices on these issues but not likely to have a chance at the nominationwere getting even minimal attention for their presidential trial balloons was the fact that all of the likely contenders have been ignoring the question of Americas need to maintain a forward position in the world and in the war on Islamist terror.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
You are correct and remember when (I think it was sam donaldson) asked Reagan with regards to the soviets as to what his plan was for the cold war... Reagan answered, “We win, they lose”. He didn’t take the use of force lightly.
LLS
Here's the passage at issue: In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out. Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president. Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. The mujaheddin did much to help bleed the Soviets dry, at a comparatively negligible cost to the United States (for smuggled military hardware and some intelligence). "We all know how well that worked out," said Sen. Paul, dismissively, of the work of our "war caucus" to support the mujaheddin. Yes, we do: It played a key role in helping us win the Cold War. Anybody who doesn't understand that is either foolish or invincibly ignorant. Second, it is a myth that the United States "armed bin Laden." False, false, false. It is also a falsehood to say that bin Laden was a major player within the mujeheddin or in the anti-Soviet war effort at all. Finally, it is false even to say that the Afghani effort against the Soviets was primarily, or even largely, about "jihad." It was a defensive effort against armed invaders, not an offensive effort by "radicals" in the name of Allah.[Posted on 02/09/2013 7:33:41 AM PST by LSUfan]
Rand Paul will not have trouble convincing the American people to be sympathetic to his basically neoisolationist philosophy.
&&&
What is the point in being an isolationist if you are willing to let illegals flood the country?
He has a number of policies that are foreign to us.
Yep - this article is just an attempt to try to sell folks that he has some "niche" qualities because they know that nobody in their right mind respects him anymore.
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.