Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Perry or Paul: Choose Your Side
Texas 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.
Senator 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
Thing is, W and O never ran against each other. McCain ran on a Bush foreign policy and lost. Obama ran on something else and won, but then did Bush foreign policy anyway. Romney ran on more-Bush-not-Obama and lost.
If Paul gets the nomination, you’re going to see Republican interventionist pundits come out in favor of Hillary because they’re scared of Paul’s “isolationism.”
You are claiming a 1-2 term “isolationist” president would be a disaster despite evidence to the contrary that the Iraq war set obama up to win the presidency. I don’t think 1-2 terms with a veto lover like Rand Paul would spell a disaster for the world or America. Nor would he spell the end of America’s military involvement around the globe.
The Perry alternative here is a man that generally would attempt to do the right thing, but would essentially be our third “Bush” presidency, setting the stage for democrats to win big again. Except this time the new tyrant might not be incompetent.
If you aren’t capable of seeing much of obama’s impact over the next century and in the life of the republic, then you need to try harder. If you don’t understand profound difference between fighting a cancer within (much worse) and a foreign threat, then talking further is pointless.
Yes we have an all volunteer military (for now) If these serial wars that end badly and create yet more problems, our military will eventually consist entirely of mercenaries. Hello Rome circa 450 AD!
In the context of the latest developments, it isn’t unjustified to use this language at all. Soldiers are adults but they have loved ones, and that’s the point. America is not Sparta. What is Perry’s plan and what is his exit strategy?
Yeah, that’s what I thought….
Just because Perry has glasses that make him look like Clark Kent doesn’t mean he’s Superman.
I think it’s more a crisis in confidence now, not a knee-jerk peacenik appeal to emotions.
I just don’t think there are enough data points to draw that conclusion. For example, there were exactly two sitting senators elected president in the 20th century.
I think you’re right Fred. One of the front page contributors said a few months back that he’d vote for obama over Rand Paul. That’s how absurd and irrational their fears are. I wonder how many of the reliable republican voters Paul would lose in the general.
Rand Paul is 95% of what conservatives profess to want in a leader, so if they truly voted for an obama/hillary/any democrat over him what remains of this republic wouldn’t last long. And as a group, we’d deserve the destruction we wrought and the masters we’d given ourselves.
None of us should be pitching anyone at this point, we have midterms to win. Then I want to see who has the political savvy to not only survive but win the primary. Romney’s last man standing approach isn’t going to cut it in the general.
I do think it’s appropriate to rule out candidates at this point and Perry’s already done that to himself already. He just doesn’t realize it yet.
Philosophically I probably have more in common with the positions articulated by Paul. BUT
I would not vote for a Senator for President if I had a million election cycles. I have given money to Paul–and may again. But not because I would ever vote for him. What he says needs to be part of the discussion–all the Reince Priebus’ in the world aside. We now have a two party system: the fast statists currently called the Democrat Party and slower statists called the Republican Party. Neither party gives a fig for our Founding documents–except as fained in fund-raising letters to their respective base. Choosing Cleveland or any venue for the Republican Convention was the only easy (and inconsequential) choice Republicans have over the next two years. Hopefully, they will have a choice other than Perry or Paul when it comes time to fill their “big tent” in “King James” country.
I may start cutting and pasting your comments. You say it better than I do. Or perhaps not because
Franco: “Is the entire Republican Party unable to recognize what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and how we now have the worst possible outcome?”
Yes, they are. Has any Ricochet discussion successfully opened a serial interventionists eyes’ to this reality?
I know that Paul Rahe said he’d vote for Obama for Ron Paul. Don’t know if he’d say it about Rand Paul.
The thing about Rand Paul is that he isn’t even that radical. But just the idea of scaling back the disastrous policy of interventionism we’ve had for the decade plus is treated as if Paul would pull out of NATO on day one.
Would reliable Republicans stay home of Paul were nominated? I doubt it. Jesus, they turned out and voted for Romney and McCain. Most of them will vote for Paul. Paul’s pro-life and genuinely believes in limited government. And there’s some polling to show that Christian conservatives are getting skeptical of interventionism.
The pundits on the other hand…
There’s a class, some pundits, some elected officials, who are terrified of Paul. That’s why the long_knives_are_coming out.
<sarcasm>Fred, don’t you understand that any scale back of our military amounts to a complete retreat from the world stage and surrender to the Islamists?</sarcasm>
As a Texan, I prefer Paul. Perry’s greatest gift to our state as governor is in his not doing all that much. He’s been governor since 2000—there are kids in high school in Texas who have never been alive when Rick Perry wasn’t their governor. What major legislation has passed through Texas in Perry’s tenure? There are some things, to be sure, but not many. And that’s a good thing–we are more free when the government is passing fewer laws, as a rule.
If Perry was as committed to not doing things when president as he is as governor, I’d support him.
You forgot “looking weak” and “destroying our credibility.”
Well, I didn’t really answer the foreign policy question posed in the post—That’s a closer call, but I’d still go with Paul I guess, because I think 4 years of trying a new approach may be a good thing.
But Tom, isn’t this what happens when democrats are elected? How do we
(1) get elected with this electorate while advocating for a more proactive Islamists/Russian/China policies
(2) successfully carry out these more aggressive policies
(3) ensure the public realizes we were successful
(4) get elected again so we can continue the policies
If we can’t do all of these, all we do is set up the democrats win congress and the whitehouse so they can continue to tear things down.
That view also completely disregards the importance of the senator’s philosophy and individual situations.
Correlation is not causation. Perhaps the type of person who aspires to be a senator is generally the type of person you’d want to keep out of the white house. I’d buy that. But that doesn’t mean all senators match that type.
Would the Rand Paul who left Kentucky for a purple state and then won the governorship really make a better president than the Rand Paul we have that won election to the senate and so far has stood true to everything he claims to believe? I think that hypothetical, carpet bagging Paul would accrue a lot of political debts and philosophical baggage that would make him a worse president.
I’m glad my memory failed to retrieve Rahe’s name because it also failed by mis-remembering which Paul would drive him into obama’s loving embrace!
You’re right, Rand Paul isn’t particularly radical when it comes to foreign policy. Where he would be radical is domestic policy which is why I am comfortable with the idea of him as president.
I’d probably side with Perry for the sake of this argument, although I think the whole debate is wrong.
We’re fighting an ideological war and we’re not good at this at all. We defeated Nazism because the Nazis said they were the superior race and they got beat by all of the so-called “inferiors.” And although we defeated the Soviets because they could not create wealth or equality, capitalism is still a dirty word to lots of people and it’s losing ground in this country.
Even if we defeat ISIS now, somebody else is willing to set up a caliphate someplace else and behead infidels. We fight the symptoms and not the disease. If we are waiting for the enemy to tire out, we’ll be waiting forever.
I don’t get the sense from either man that something larger is involved than boots on the ground in Iraq and that debate just isn’t going to solve our problems.
Some years ago I asked a group of conservative friends “What would have happened if we had never gone into Iraq the first time?” (Operation Desert Storm) The answer: “We would be paying $4.00 for a gallon of gas.” The war accomplished little other than to inflame Osama bin Laden by placing our air bases on Saudi soil. Was Kuwait beholden to us after freeing their country? No but just make sure you clean our toilets before you leave! We protected Saudi Arabia (from whence came the 9/11 terrorists) while they continue to spend billions to promote Muslim radicalism in Pakistan and around the world.
Our presence in the middle east only increases our chances of another attack in the US. We knew going in that three irreconcilable factions existed in Iraq. A trillion dollars and 4000+ lives later those factions are still present and will never peacefully coexist as long a the Muslim faith exists. Iraq can be governed only by a brutal dictatorship or an Islamic Caliphate.
I say promote our own energy independence, protect and defend our friend Israel and otherwise stay the hell out.
I did not make such a claim. I responded to this claim of yours (specifically, the bolded portion):
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.
This is, essentially , the Obama doctrine: Do nothing unless your hand is forced.
The result has not been good. Once you’ve given up your international presence, you can’t simply jump back into the game on a moment’s notice. Our enemies understand this. Too many Americans don’t.
I fear that America’s current position in the world is such that a certain amount of “pulling back” is thrust upon us. As someone opined earlier, our credibility is “already” destroyed (maybe. perhaps I’m wrong. I want to be wrong.) Protect Israel. Protect freedom-of-transit in the South China Sea (which by itself is a big complex mess). Give preferential immigration status to Iraqis who worked with us, and thus are in particular danger as things in Iraq go sideways. Beyond that …? The rest of it is not at all clear to me.
My position is the opposite of the obama doctrine. I said don’t do things that get democrats elected. The last Iraq war clearly handed democrats power of congress and the white house. That is the far greater threat. Fighting terrorists is easy compared to repairing the damage liberal politicians cause.
I see it differently. I encourage you to start a new conversation with that statement as its thesis. I would be happy to comment on it there, but we’re getting a little off topic here.
Defeating ISIS would be a pretty good way of fighting the ideological battle. We would empower their ideological enemies, including the Free Syrian Army who are fighting and killing ISIS (who have been coordinating with Assad in some recent battles for the purpose of fighting the FSA), rather than allying with them. If ISIS is successful in forcing preachers to preach ISIS-like theology, the doctrine will spread. If ISIS’ preachers are killed, the doctrine will slow. This is before taking into account the degree to which successful movements appear more plausible in their claims to divine favor.
I don’t know if Paul really believes that the FSA aren’t fighting ISIS, or if his claim is like Reid’s claim to have inside knowledge on Romney not paying taxes for ten years.
Certainly destroying ISIS, destroying its resources and denying it territory and momentum are all helpful. But when the shooting is done, does the effort to re-establish the caliphate die with them? I think the answer is no. At best, you destroy the desire to have a caliphate run by this particular group.
I’ll set this up on a separate thread in the next few days. I don’t want to derail this thread.
Please PM me if I miss the thread.