Perry or Paul: Choose Your Side

 

shutterstock_180919151Texas Governor Rick Perry, writing Friday in the Washington Post:

… It’s disheartening to hear fellow Republicans, such as Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), suggest that our nation should ignore what’s happening in Iraq. The main problem with this argument is that it means ignoring the profound threat that the group now calling itself the Islamic State poses to the United States and the world.

A little later:

In the face of the advancement of the Islamic State, Paul and others suggest the best approach to this 21st-century threat is to do next to nothing. I personally don’t believe in a wait-and-see foreign policy for the United States. Neither would Reagan.

… Viewed together, Obama’s policies have certainly led us to this dangerous point in Iraq and Syria, but Paul’s brand of isolationism (or whatever term he prefers) would compound the threat of terrorism even further.

shutterstock_180495323Senator Paul, returning the volley at Politico, first notes the fact that his position amounts to much more than sitting on our hands:

I support continuing our assistance to the government of Iraq, which include armaments and intelligence. I support using advanced technology to prevent ISIS from becoming a threat. I also want to stop sending U.S. aid and arms to Islamic rebels in Syria who are allied with ISIS, something Perry doesn’t even address. I would argue that if anything, my ideas for this crisis are both stronger, and not rooted simply in bluster.

If the governor continues to insist that these proposals mean I’m somehow “ignoring ISIS,” I’ll make it my personal policy to ignore Rick Perry’s opinions.

Then, after noting that Perry said during the 2012 presidential debates that he would send troops back into Iraq, comes the big philosophical contrast:

Does Perry now believe that we should send U.S. troops back into Iraq to fight the Iranians—or to help Iran fight ISIS? As everyone agrees, governor, there are no easy options.

Unlike Perry, I oppose sending American troops back into Iraq. After a decade of the United States training the Iraq’s military, when confronted by the enemy, the Iraqis dropped their weapons, shed their uniforms and hid. Our soldiers’ hard work and sacrifice should be worth more than that. Our military is too good for that.

I ask Governor Perry: How many Americans should send their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country — a nation the Iraqis won’t defend for themselves? How many Texan mothers and fathers will Governor Perry ask to send their children to fight in Iraq?

I will not hold my breath for an answer. If refusing to send Americans to die for a country that refuses to defend itself makes one an “isolationist,” then perhaps its time we finally retire that pejorative.

Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want to send U.S. soldiers back into Iraq. Is Perry calling the entire country “isolationist” too?

The let’s-intervene-and-consider-the-consequences-later crowd left us with more than 4,000 Americans dead, over 2 million refugees and over trillions of dollars in debt. Anytime someone advocates sending our sons and daughters to war, questions about precise objectives, effective methods and an exit strategy must be thoughtfully answered. America deserves this. Our military certainly deserves this.

Read both pieces in full if you want a better sense of where each man is coming from. Keep in mind, of course, that these are potential presidential candidates essentially delivering monologues, which means they have the luxury of playing only the angles they want.

Truth be told, I’m not entirely comfortable with either one’s position. As I’ve noted here before, I fall firmly into the Jacksonian tradition of American foreign policy. That means that the Rick Perrys of the world (and, for that matter, the Marco Rubios and — god knows — the John McCains) tend to strike me as too indiscriminate in their definitions of America’s national security interests. Senator Paul, however, probably has much more misgivings about the application of American power than I do, though I think, rhetorical excesses aside (can we please retire the notion that any parent “sends their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country?”), his is probably the sounder strategic judgment on this case — at least at the moment.

I suspect there’s more than a few Ricochet members who aren’t quite at either ideological pole either. But here’s the question: if, say, you’re only choice was between a GOP led by someone with Rick Perry’s foreign policy sensibilities or Rand Paul’s, which would you choose? In other words, does the greater danger lie, going forward, with an America that is too quick to exercise its power overseas or too slow? 

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 55 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Badderbrau Moderator
    Badderbrau
    @EKentGolding

    Overall, I prefer Perry to Paul, Governors to Senators, Confident Assertivenes to Passive Aquiesence. But that’s just me.

    • #1
  2. Whiskey Sam Inactive
    Whiskey Sam
    @WhiskeySam

    What an awful choice.  I lean more towards where Rand is coming from.  That line about a nation that won’t even defend itself is pretty damning.  However, my response would be much different from Rand’s.  It’d be live and let live until they mess with us then it’s nuke them back into the stone age and put an end to this once and for all.

    • #2
  3. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Sounds to me like we’re getting geared up for another W. v O. presidential race, sadly.

    If neither is right, what cobbled together mass from the best from each is the better policy?

    • #3
  4. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    Troy Senik, Ed.: In other words, does the greater danger lie, going forward, with an America that is too quick to exercise its power overseas or too slow?

    We’ve got one of those conditions today. We need to pull in the opposite direction.

    • #4
  5. Troy Senik, Ed. Member
    Troy Senik, Ed.
    @TroySenik

    Whiskey Sam:

    What an awful choice. I lean more towards where Rand is coming from. That line about a nation that won’t even defend itself is pretty damning. However, my response would be much different from Rand’s. It’d be live and live until they mess with us then it’s nuke them back into the stone age and put an end to this once and for all.

     Congratulations, you too are a Jacksonian.

    • #5
  6. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    Troy Senik, Ed.:

     In other words, does the greater danger lie, going forward, with an America that is too quick to exercise its power overseas or too slow?

     Too slow is the greater danger.  All the more reason to avoid unnecessary military interventions for a decade so that the American people can shake this war fatigue.

    For the record I consider Iran a necessary military intervention to prevent them from getting a bomb. 

    • #6
  7. Dudley Inactive
    Dudley
    @Dudley

    If pressed I’d have to choose Perry, the deciding factory being foreign policy.  While Rand may be a republican he’s more Libertarian in the realm of foreign policy and I find the Libertarian stance on foreign policy unserious, and in the real world completely impractical.

    • #7
  8. flownover Inactive
    flownover
    @flownover

    Governor with sixteen years administrative experience versus Senator ? Governor , every time. 

    Isolationist libertarian versus traditional Republican ? Isolationist libertarians are quaint, but it’s a big world. 

    I like both of these men, but then it’s sort of an equivalency when confronted with anyone from the “other side” . 

    That means the media is setting up a public cat fight in order to wound both cats. Screw the media . 

    Senators make crummy presidents anyway .

    • #8
  9. user_375390 Coolidge
    user_375390
    @JohnStanley

    We are now watching the end of Iraq.  Iraq was a result of post World War I treaties, and it had been held to together by brute force.    

    The northern part of Iraq has formed a separate Kurdish government.  (To be fair, it could be said they had their own government from 1992.) The Kurds do not pose a danger to us, nor can any good reason be given to force them to rejoin  a failed state, to the south.   The remainder of Iraq will be divided among the warring factions.

    I believe Senator Paul is right, and our best course is not rejoin this war.

    • #9
  10. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Whiskey Sam: What an awful choice.  I lean more towards where Rand is coming from.  That line about a nation that won’t even defend itself is pretty damning.  

    Much my feeling.  Rand has some stinker’s in his piece such as the sons-and-daughters line*, but Perry seems to be writing on auto-pilot.

    * In America, an eighteen-year-old who volunteers to join the armed forces is a child, but a thirteen-year-old who wants an abortion is an adult.  Makes you want to cry.

    • #10
  11. Sabrdance Member
    Sabrdance
    @Sabrdance

    I reject this paradigm and substitute my own! :)
     
    I like parts of both of them.  I dislike parts of both of them.  The ideal solution is to wait until the primary actually happens 18 months hence -you know, after the midterms -and see if one or the other co-opts the other in a beneficial way, or if someone else can cut up the middle.
     
    In short, I want their improvised and compromised child.

    • #11
  12. Zeke Inactive
    Zeke
    @Zeke

    Whiskey Sam:

    What an awful choice. I lean more towards where Rand is coming from. That line about a nation that won’t even defend itself is pretty damning. However, my response would be much different from Rand’s. It’d be live and let live until they mess with us then it’s nuke them back into the stone age and put an end to this once and for all.

     Ditto!

    • #12
  13. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    In this debate I think Paul’s got the better argument.  ISIS would certainly like to be a mortal threat to the US, but they aren’t right now.  And sending our troops to defend people who won’t defend themselves, against something that’s not a threat to us at the moment is a non-starter.

    I think we had no choice but to clean out Saddam & Sons, but they’re gone.  The Iraqis need to run their own country.

    And this whole dispute is a bit academic, as I wouldn’t support any foreign venture run by the current CinC…

    • #13
  14. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    Perry’s “win one for the Gipper” rhetoric leaves me cold. Put me with Paul. 

    My concern is that too quick leads to too slow leads to too quick leads to too slow.  I other words, we need to stop reacting to ourselves and focus only on the circumstance.

    • #14
  15. AR Inactive
    AR
    @AR

    Frank Soto:

    Troy Senik, Ed.:

    In other words, does the greater danger lie, going forward, with an America that is too quick to exercise its power overseas or too slow?

    Too slow is the greater danger. All the more reason to avoid unnecessary military interventions for a decade so that the American people can shake this war fatigue.

    Are you sure about that? Didn’t the last Iraq war saddle the country with obama? If we try to help the Iraqis a third time, won’t we get someone even worse than the One? After all, the democrat party is only getting more extreme, more liberal, and more fascist.

    • #15
  16. user_7742 Inactive
    user_7742
    @BrianWatt

    I believe that Paul’s thinking on Iraq is actually correct given the hand that Obama, his inept Secretaries of State and VP have dealt us. If Iran was a secular state and not the terrorist empire that it is, the calculus for intervention would be easier. But I smell a quagmire. Paul would make a better VPOTUS than POTUS and the experience would help him acquire the skills for statecraft. He has been a great supporter of Israel, let’s not forget.

    I wouldn’t want Perry at the top of the ticket. His performance on FoxNews Sunday was a bit embarrassing when Brit Hume had to ask repeatedly what the Texas National Guard could do if they weren’t empowered to arrest and detain illegals crossing the border. All Perry could come up with was that they would be a show of force…and though that may be a deterrent, he genuinely seemed to be grasping at straws.

    If you want a governor in the top spot, I recommend Scott Walker for his perserverance when his state capitol was under seige by union thugs and the Democrats had fled. That man has a backbone.

    • #16
  17. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    AR:

    Frank Soto:

    Troy Senik, Ed.:

    In other words, does the greater danger lie, going forward, with an America that is too quick to exercise its power overseas or too slow?

    Too slow is the greater danger. All the more reason to avoid unnecessary military interventions for a decade so that the American people can shake this war fatigue.

    Are you sure about that? Didn’t the last Iraq war saddle the country with obama? If we try to help the Iraqis a third time, won’t we get someone even worse than the One? After all, the democrat party is only getting more extreme, more liberal, and more fascist.

    Reread what I wrote and see if your question really critiques my statement.  Troy’s question is broader than the Iraq war.

    • #17
  18. AR Inactive
    AR
    @AR

    Frank Soto:

    AR:

    Frank Soto:

    Too slow is the greater danger. All the more reason to avoid unnecessary military interventions for a decade so that the American people can shake this war fatigue.

    Are you sure about that? Didn’t the last Iraq war saddle the country with obama? If we try to help the Iraqis a third time, won’t we get someone even worse than the One? After all, the democrat party is only getting more extreme, more liberal, and more fascist.

    Reread what I wrote and see if your question really critiques my statement. Troy’s question is broader than the Iraq war.

     I guess you are certain too slow is the greater danger. I think eight years of obama’s domestic terrorism against citizens and what remains of the republic has been far worse than eight years of foreign terrorism would have been. Even democrats can be woken up enough to resist foreign terrorists as 9/11 proved. Fighting back against foreign threats is also far easier than resisting and turning back the destruction of our country as our country’s entire history has proven.

    • #18
  19. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    AR:

    Frank Soto:

    AR:

    Frank Soto:

    Too slow is the greater danger. All the more reason to avoid unnecessary military interventions for a decade so that the American people can shake this war fatigue.

    Are you sure about that? Didn’t the last Iraq war saddle the country with obama? If we try to help the Iraqis a third time, won’t we get someone even worse than the One? After all, the democrat party is only getting more extreme, more liberal, and more fascist.

    Reread what I wrote and see if your question really critiques my statement. Troy’s question is broader than the Iraq war.

    I guess you are certain too slow is the greater danger. I think eight years of obama’s domestic terrorism against citizens and what remains of the republic has been far worse than eight years of foreign terrorism would have been. Even democrats can be woken up enough to resist foreign terrorists as 9/11 proved. Fighting back against foreign threats is also far easier than resisting and turning back the destruction of our country as our country’s entire history has proven.

     AR,

    We have an over abundance of history telling us that the world is an ugly place without empire.  There is no one to replace the U.S. after we abjugate the role.  

    I have stated my issues with how the Iraq war was fought too many times to start recounting them here, but the peace we enjoy now is the extreme exception to the rule, and will not survive an isolationist America.  

    • #19
  20. AR Inactive
    AR
    @AR

    Frank Soto:
    AR,

    We have an over abundance of history telling us that the world is an ugly place without empire. There is no one to replace the U.S. after we abjugate the role.

    I have stated my issues with how the Iraq war was fought too many times to start recounting them here, but the peace we enjoy now is the extreme exception to the rule, and will not survive an isolationist America.

     I don’t think a brief spell with a libertarian conservative president would translate into an isolationist America. I think successful terrorist attacks in America would rouse people from their slumber and we would quickly retaliate. Even liberals tend to get offended by being blown up.

    • #20
  21. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    Hindsight is 20/20.  Sitting where we are now I am in the Paul camp.  However, seven years ago I was a big fan of GWB’s surge.  Every politician or pundit that tries to claim they knew that Iraq would end this way in 2003 or 2006, did not come to that conclusion out of concerted study or other great insight, it was just their natural bias (i.e. Rand Paul wouldn’t have invaded Iraq if Saddam had tested a nuclear bomb in 2002).

    The one thing I think we should start doing immediately is to give as much aid and protection to the Kurds in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey as we can.  From what I can tell the Kurds have the closest thing you can get to a moderate, tolerant Muslim society.

    • #21
  22. Grendel Member
    Grendel
    @Grendel

    Perry.
    In the case of Iraq, either one would be able to blame Obama.

    • #22
  23. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    AR:

    Frank Soto: AR,

    We have an over abundance of history telling us that the world is an ugly place without empire. There is no one to replace the U.S. after we abjugate the role.

    I have stated my issues with how the Iraq war was fought too many times to start recounting them here, but the peace we enjoy now is the extreme exception to the rule, and will not survive an isolationist America.

    I don’t think a brief spell with a libertarian conservative president would translate into an isolationist America. I think successful terrorist attacks in America would rouse people from their slumber and we would quickly retaliate. Even liberals tend to get offended by being blown up.

    Oh well. I guess that means we’ll just have to wait until someone starts blowing up Americans.

    • #23
  24. AR Inactive
    AR
    @AR

    rico:

    AR:

    Frank Soto: AR,

    We have an over abundance of history telling us that the world is an ugly place without empire. There is no one to replace the U.S. after we abjugate the role.

    I have stated my issues with how the Iraq war was fought too many times to start recounting them here, but the peace we enjoy now is the extreme exception to the rule, and will not survive an isolationist America.

    I don’t think a brief spell with a libertarian conservative president would translate into an isolationist America. I think successful terrorist attacks in America would rouse people from their slumber and we would quickly retaliate. Even liberals tend to get offended by being blown up.

    Oh well. I guess that means we’ll just have to wait until someone starts blowing up Americans.

     Roughly a million babies are murdered every year in this country. Americans are doing a pretty good job of blowing each other up as it is.

    • #24
  25. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    AR:

    rico:

    AR:

    Frank Soto: AR,

    We have an over abundance of history telling us that the world is an ugly place without empire. There is no one to replace the U.S. after we abjugate the role.

    I have stated my issues with how the Iraq war was fought too many times to start recounting them here, but the peace we enjoy now is the extreme exception to the rule, and will not survive an isolationist America.

    I don’t think a brief spell with a libertarian conservative president would translate into an isolationist America. I think successful terrorist attacks in America would rouse people from their slumber and we would quickly retaliate. Even liberals tend to get offended by being blown up.

    Ohwell. Iguess thatmeans we’ll just have to wait untilsomeone starts blowingupAmericans.

    Roughly a million babies are murdered every year in this country. Americans are doing a pretty good job of blowing each other up as it is.

    You’re just not making any sense. Perhaps someone who shares your view can step in and explain why an isolationist policy would be okay since we would be able to unite and retaliate after we are attacked.

    • #25
  26. user_370242 Inactive
    user_370242
    @Mikescapes

    Did you catch Fox Sunday last? Perry and Netanyahu interviewed on show by Brett Hume. How can anyone take Perry seriously as a presidential candidate? He’s disjointed in his comments. I agree with him (I think), but he had trouble nailing down his views when Brett pressed him on National Guard at the border. On the contrary, Hume was most solicitious with Netanyahu. Why? Because he was dealing with a for real statesman who knew his subject cold; communicates and instructs at the same time. Netanyahu is a presence. Perry is a nice looking guy in horn rimmed glasses who’s heart is in the right place, but hasn’t really advanced much over his 2012 primary flop. And the border is right up his alley (corridor). Still, he’s an intellectual softy.

    This is not a pitch for Rand Paul!

    • #26
  27. dittoheadadt Inactive
    dittoheadadt
    @dittoheadadt

    Troy Senik, Ed.: Rand Paul: “I ask Governor Perry: How many Americans should send their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country…”

    I wish the Right would know enough not to use this trope. No one sends their sons or daughters; ours is an all-volunteer military.

    There’s a better way for Sen. Paul to make his point than to use the emotional-garbage language of the Left.

    • #27
  28. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    Mike Silver: Perry is a nice looking guy in horn rimmed glasses who’s heart is in the right place,

     Completely agree.

    San Dimas High School Football Rules!

    • #28
  29. HeartofAmerica Inactive
    HeartofAmerica
    @HeartofAmerica

    I like Paul’s response, more thoughtful than knee-jerk. I like Perry but sometimes he seems unprepared, more cowboy than statesman. I like Rand but sometimes he pulls what I call a Crazy Ivan, meaning I’m tracking along and then suddenly he says something so different than where he’s been that I am scratching my head. However, usually, it’s a comment taken out of context from the whole interview and once you hear the whole thought, it makes more sense.
    Bottom line….it’s still really, really early to be picking sides.

    • #29
  30. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    In order for me to come around again to agree with the serial interventionists (yeah, that’s the opposite of “isolationists”) I would have to have some assurances that we can accomplish missions, and once we do (sort of) that Democrats won’t use the costs to their political advantage and elect another Obama.

    Is the entire Republican Party unable to recognize what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and how we now have the worst possible outcome? We lost the war, we lost a crucial election because of it, we lost Iraq to an even stronger Islamist group than Al Qeada, we lost credibility in the world, we lost the trust of allies, we lost lives, we have injured vets who are not being properly taken care of, and we lost lots of money. Obama caused a lot of that, but consider how we got Obama. 

    The worst is that the American people have lost the will to fight. Our leaders have dug themselves into a defict of resolve because they have lost our confidence both as individuals and collectively. 

    Rick Perry, John McCain et al are not going to inspire enough political will to sustain their interventionist plans, and they have no track record of success anyway. If there is some grand plan Perry has I’d like to see it.  All they have is rhetoric,  and all they can do is try to supress their political opponents angling for political glory. 

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.