Paul vs. Perry, Round 2: Rand says Rick is ‘stuck in the past’

posted at 8:41 am on July 14, 2014 by Noah Rothman

Texas Gov. Rick Perry made the most of his renewed position in the national spotlight last week when he penned an op-ed in which he displayed his foreign policy chops. Perry showed that he favors a more robust American approach to foreign affairs and singled out Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), another likely 2016 presidential candidate, for criticism.

“Many people are tired of war, and the urge to pull back is a natural, human reaction,” Perry wrote. “Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further.”

That’s why 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.

On Monday, in a piece published in Politico Magazine, Paul shot back at Perry. At some points, Paul contended that his policy prescriptions for conflicts like the renewed fighting in Iraq are not that distinct from those Perry recommends. At others, Paul insisted that his approach to foreign affairs is radically different from his past Republican foreign policy doctrines.

“Governor Perry writes a fictionalized account of my foreign policy so mischaracterizing my views that I wonder if he’s even really read any of my policy papers,” Paul began. “In fact, some of Perry’s solutions for the current chaos in Iraq aren’t much different from what I’ve proposed, something he fails to mention. His solutions also aren’t much different from President Barack Obama’s, something he also fails to mention. Because interestingly enough, there aren’t that many good choices right now in dealing with this situation in Iraq.”

Paul wrote that everyone from himself, to Perry, to the president has said that they are willing to renew airstrikes in Iraq if that course makes sense. Paul noted that Perry has advocated sending American troops back to Iraq long before the rise of ISIS, perhaps as a means of preventing its ascension. On this point, Paul goes for the jugular.

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?

Paul closes by casting himself in the mold of Ronald Regan, noting that America’s 40th president “hated war” and was no hawk. “Perry couldn’t be more stuck in the past,” Paul concluded, “doubling down on formulas that haven’t worked, parroting rhetoric that doesn’t make sense and reinforcing petulant attitudes that have cost our nation a great deal.”

It is interesting that, though this piece is a true shot across the bow of Perry and the Republican foreign policy establishment, it opens relatively apologetically. Even stranger when one considers that Paul’s disengaged approach to dealing with foreign conflicts is particularly appealing to the Republican electorate.

In the last Wall Street Journal poll of Republicans, a new high of 58 percent said that the war in Afghanistan was not worth it. An Annenberg Survey in June revealed that 46 percent of Republicans agreed that the war in Iraq was also not worth the sacrifice. A plurality of Republicans – 45 to 29 percent – told WSJ pollsters in April that the U.S. should be less active in global affairs.

With Republican voters seemingly open to Paul’s brand of foreign policy, you would expect more Republican candidates to be moving in that direction; or, at least, not being openly hostile to Paul’s approach to foreign affairs. Instead, it is the junior senator from Kentucky who is treading lightly while attempting to move the GOP in his direction on foreign affairs.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Perry/Paul 2016

Lord Whorfin on July 14, 2014 at 8:47 AM

It’s clear that Paul is as complete an idiot when it comes to international affairs as his crazy daddy or Obama who Paul lauded when he pulled stakes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Happy Nomad on July 14, 2014 at 8:47 AM

These are good debates. These are the type of debates we should be having.

gophergirl on July 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

It’ll be interesting to see where Rand’s views are in mid ’16.

vnvet on July 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Tough to argue that Paul’s not a better politician. But then I don’t think that’s a feature.

MT on July 14, 2014 at 8:53 AM

gophergirl on July 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Be honest girl.

You just like having that thrill up your leg at the crease in his pants.

Here, have a water before you faint.

cozmo on July 14, 2014 at 8:53 AM

I agree with Paul about sending troops back to Iraq, we gave the Iraqis their opportunity on a silver platter and they dropped it into the dust.

Dropping a few Daisy Cutters on ISIS formations or anyone else who looks like they’re getting ready to make large scale trouble, that I can support.

Bishop on July 14, 2014 at 8:55 AM

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.

That’s a very nice patronizing, platitude. It’s also ridiculously foolish and naive.

If Mr. Paul had read several recommendations made by our military, he would realize they implored us to do the converse. That is, after a long, hard fought campaign, our military suggested we leave a number of troops, close to about 10,000. Those troops would help secure Iraq by continuing to train their military, advise them and build associated institutions.

The number was of course chipped away by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton during ridiculous SOFA negotiations until it was zero. Now, what the military predicted and Mr. Obama could have avoided has come true.

Which ultimately leaves Mr. Paul closer to Mr. Obama’s position. He is also preaching the same, failed isolationist policy of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton- albeit for different philosophical reasons.

Mr. Paul isn’t a leader. He’s become another opportunistic politician angling for a presidential run. No thanks.

Marcus Traianus on July 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM

These are good debates. These are the type of debates we should be having.

gophergirl on July 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

I agree completely.

The GOP needs to be the Capital of Debates.

Too many in the party are terrified of opposing or contrary views.

Try talking about Immigration Reform and watch what happens.

Debate is the GOP’s greatest strength.

jake-the-goose on July 14, 2014 at 9:00 AM

Sorry,

I dont’ think those polls are accurate. I’d have to see what the question was. Every sane person when asked whether war is good will say no. Every sane person when asked if a war was worth it will probably say no.

The differance between Paul and Perry is that of perception. Republicans don’t want America to be be percieved as weak. Do they want war, no. If Paul really wanted to wear the mantle of Regan he’s remember “Peace through Strength.”

Critic2029 on July 14, 2014 at 9:00 AM

The first candidate that says we should nuke the entire middle east gets my vote. Yes, I’m being slightly sarcastic here but seriously, other than Israel, I don’t see anything else worth saving over there.

BeachBum on July 14, 2014 at 9:02 AM

It is hard to argue against Paul on the topic of Iraq….

on the other hand, he is one of the absolute worst when it
comes to immigration…”They’re doing it for Love”
isn’t that right Rand?

At this point, if a few certain individuals don’t run in 2016,
I’ll simply place a giant cardboard cutout of RR in my front
yard….

ToddPA on July 14, 2014 at 9:03 AM

Rand is a complete moron – and unfit to lead.

RAND PAUL MEETS PRIVATELY WITH MARK ZUCKERBERG

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/13/Rand-Paul-Huddles-Privately-with-Mark-Zuckerberg

Pork-Chop on July 14, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Ronald Regan?

Nicole Coulter on July 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Paul is weak..

aqua Buddha..

workingclass artist on July 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

Debate is the GOP’s greatest strength.

jake-the-goose on July 14, 2014 at 9:00 AM

yeah, especially with Lestist Moderators….

In 2012, one of the earliest “Debates” with all 250 candidates,
or however many, had Chris Matthews doing yeoman’s work
for MSNBC. He actually asked someone, I think Santorum, what
he Hated most about America, and Why? I kid you not.

IF the GOP is ever going to get back in the game, they damn well
better realize who the enemies are.

ToddPA on July 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

I find it disheartening that any conservative would take Rand Paul seriously.

Immolate on July 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

Noah tends to side with the left in attacking conservatives. Living proof what watching too much MSNBC can do to your brain.

In Nov. Huffington Post tried to make this a “controversy”:

Rick Perry Might Not Know Chuck Todd’s First Name

Michael Tomasky @mtomasky

Rick Perry wears glasses all the time now? And I think he just called Chuck Todd “Todd.”
6:19 AM – 8 Nov 2013

Noah Rothman chimed in

Noah Rothman ‏@NoahCRothman

Pretty clear Rick Perry has no idea who Chuck Todd is.

6:27 AM – 8 Nov 2013

LeighLeigh ‏@Naner1969

@NoahCRothman folks don’t realize it is a Texan thing to do to call folks by their last name. I am Texan. I call my boss by his last name.

6:27 AM – 8 Nov 2013

Noah Rothman ‏@NoahCRothman

@Naner1969 Really? I didn’t know that.

1:33 PM – 8 Nov 2013

sauldalinsky on July 14, 2014 at 9:11 AM

I’m all for nuking the middle east, but only if it can be done without harming Israel, which is the only worthwhile country there.

Mariadee on July 14, 2014 at 9:11 AM

“Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further.”

Never trust anyone who uses the word “isolationist.”

Akzed on July 14, 2014 at 9:16 AM

I find it disheartening that any conservative would take Rand Paul seriously.

Immolate on July 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

.
I take him seriously.

There’s a lot I disagree with him over, but it doesn’t stop me from taking him (and others) seriously.

listens2glenn on July 14, 2014 at 9:18 AM

“Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further.”

Noah Rothman on July 14, 2014 at 8:41 AM

.
Never trust anyone who uses the word “isolationist.”

Akzed on July 14, 2014 at 9:16 AM

.
Why ?

listens2glenn on July 14, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Never trust anyone who uses the word “isolationist.”

Akzed on July 14, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Never trust anyone who says that everyone voting in every election is awesome and very definition of “American”. Paul is no libertarian and he certainly isn’t a conservative. Wise up man, I was a hardcore Paulbot but the fact is the Welfare/Warfare economy isn’t going to end until outside forces put a stop to it and until then open borders and outreach in Detroit are a waste of what little time and resources we have left.

abobo on July 14, 2014 at 9:22 AM

“Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further.”

Noah Rothman on July 14, 2014 at 8:41 AM

Come on Noah, that’s not true and you know it. Isolationist policies only threaten a nation whose footprint is literally everywhere outside of a few rogue states. Truly closed borders, Chinese style port inspection regimes, and a list of nations whose people will NOT under any circumstances allow to fly over here. I’ve honestly been saying this since the very day after 9/11 and will be as true after the next 9/11, which will be caused by open borders, ports, and air travel – NOT isolationism or freedom fries. Many of us support Perry IN SPITE of the hawkish BS, not because of it.

abobo on July 14, 2014 at 9:27 AM

The differance between Paul and Perry is that of perception. Republicans don’t want America to be be percieved as weak. Do they want war, no. If Paul really wanted to wear the mantle of Regan he’s remember “Peace through Strength.”

Critic2029 on July 14, 2014 at 9:00 AM

Good point , I don’t think Paul has it in him . Perception often trumps reality and I don’t Paul
can fake a Regan .

Lucano on July 14, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Sen. Paul needs to get his facts straight. First of all we have not been training the Iraqi Army for a decade.We trained them for less than four years. No small detail and his hyperbole is disappointing.

Also he needs to understand how we staff our military.
There are no children in the military. Only grown men and women who volunteered. The U.S. military does not canvass neighborhoods knocking on doors asking parents to push their children out the door so we can send them somewhere to die. The Military never sends soldiers to die. They send them to fight.

One more point is that when Gov. Perry called to send troops back to Iraq it was over two years ago and a very different Iraq.
The difference is like going to the doctor for an in-patient procedure and going to one to have a triple bypass.
Whether or not Gov. Perry has the right solution to Iraq I do not know but he has a proven track record of leadership and executive experience and that is more than I can say for Sen. Paul.

NeoKong on July 14, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Perry never had an original idea in his entire life. He was terrible on Fox Sunday. He’s so afraid of making a mistake he talks in riddles.

huckleberryfriend on July 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Rand says Rick is ‘stuck in the past

Ummm, that would make him a conservative in one sense. Being stuck in the past. Not a good attack phrase if you’re hoping to peel off conservatives, Rand.

GWB on July 14, 2014 at 9:36 AM

What is there about ground invasions that gives the neocons of every stripe such a monstrous wood? Muslims who are busy killing other Muslims are a perfect market for American weaponry: sell them some with a discount and you’ve made a few new friends, sell to both sides and you suddenly have a lot less enemies. What’s not to like?!

Rix on July 14, 2014 at 9:37 AM

huckleberryfriend on July 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Brit Hume was horrible on Sunday . Really flat , terrible questions
and just a bad attitude . I think that might throw anyone off .

Lucano on July 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM

Be honest girl.

You just like having that thrill up your leg at the crease in his pants.

Here, have a water before you faint.

cozmo on July 14, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Actually it’s the accent and the cowboy boots.

gophergirl on July 14, 2014 at 9:43 AM

I don’t claim to know all the ins and outs about why our
politicians vote for war or against, put troops in or take
troops out, however, I do know that this ten year “war”
cost billions, resulted in thousands of lives lost and cost
way too much of our tax dollars.

If that makes me an isolationist, so be it. I do not support
troops on the ground in Iraq right now. I do support targeted
air strikes. Also, for years we have heard the “Al Quaeda”
threat; now it has changed to “ISIS”. What the heck? All of
a sudden this group pops up and starts wreaking havoc in the
middle east? Something smells; I am sure it is coming from
our politicians and media.

If anyone wants to be a “war hawk” I want them to send their
son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, niece, nephew, brother
sister over there to fight first.

Amjean on July 14, 2014 at 9:45 AM

I am sure a GOP platform of continued military intervention around the world is a real election winner.

/sarc

Clark1 on July 14, 2014 at 9:56 AM

Paul is right about Perry being stuck in the past. Unfortunately, thanks to the fecklessness of the Obama Administration, so is Paul, so are the American people, and so is the rest of the world.

Obama’s incompetence has rolled the clock back 12 years when it comes to terrorism, and we must now operate in a 2002 world, or risk the consequences in blood and treasure — within the United States, as well as overseas.

No Truce With Kings on July 14, 2014 at 9:59 AM

And Paul drops the mic. Lol.

coolrepublica on July 14, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Just wish Perry had a little more on the ball. Spectacles will only take you so far.

Sherman1864 on July 14, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Keep in mind hyperbole and deflection are not debate. Nor are cleverly crafted pathos arguments.

Mr. Paul has a penchant for manufacturing a headline, in which he utilizes most of the aforementioned.

I agree “debate” and intellectual argumentation is healthy because it leads to better ideas and policies.

The GOP’s strength, at least in the past, is they’ve built comprehensive policies on principled, factual, honest and open debate.

Yielding to the creation of emotional sound clips, schoolyard ad hominems, closed-minded, inflexible policies and non sequitur’s is the domain of liberals and self-absorbed despots.

Marcus Traianus on July 14, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Amjean on July 14, 2014 at 9:45 AM

There’s a big difference between a ” war hawk ”
and projecting strength . IMHO ; )

Lucano on July 14, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Another Jr. Senator resorts to personal jabs.

Slow. Clap.

can_con on July 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM

I don’t need an argument between Rick Perry and Rand Paul. You get the feeling that Rand Paul is putting on a show to attract libertarian followers. While it is good to see Rick Perry stand up for what he knows, and this is a huge Texas issue having him out in the news, Perry is not sharp on all fronts, in fact, he is so much like George Bush. Please, I am not a Bush hater, I accept that Bush chose mostly what was right, but on Immigration he and Perry were almost identical. I don’t want another Texan governor for President until perhaps we get President Cruz. I wish there was time for Cruz to serve that way.

I would hate to think that Perry is not being listened to on border security because someone in either party wants to “ruin” his chances to be president. He seems very genuine on border security, not like he is putting on a show, he has put his states own money out there in the Rio Grande, so he knows how to do it efficiently.

Fleuries on July 14, 2014 at 10:14 AM

abobo on July 14, 2014 at 9:22 AM
listens2glenn on July 14, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Not a fan of Ron Paul, don’t know why that would be presumed.

It is not in our national interest to be taking sides all over the world in regional conflicts. We should serve as an example of good behavior to other nations, and make examples of other nations when need be. Our foreign policy need not be much more complex than that.

“Isolationism” is a political cuss word designed to limit debate, as if it were the only option available to describe those uninterested in sticking our collective nose into foreign problems.

Akzed on July 14, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Rand Paul is fast becoming the NUT that didn’t fall far from The Tree of Ron Paul. Popular, but a small fry when you look at him on the national stage. Go back and hug your daddy’s apron.

Nat George on July 14, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Protest Times and Locations for July 18-19 National Protests Against Amnesty

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/64539?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

Pork-Chop on July 14, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Ronald Regan?

Nicole Coulter on July 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Yeah, it was Donald Regan, wasn’t it?

jaime on July 14, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Rand Paul is fast becoming the NUT that didn’t fall far from The Tree of Ron Paul. Popular, but a small fry when you look at him on the national stage. Go back and hug your daddy’s apron.

Nat George on July 14, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Let’s quote Steve jobs here and say ” here’s to the crazy ones.”

coolrepublica on July 14, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Rand says Rick is ‘stuck in the past’

…and Rand has something…’stuck up his butt’!!!!!!!!

JugEarsButtHurt on July 14, 2014 at 10:39 AM

And Paul drops the mic. Lol.

coolrepublica on July 14, 2014 at 10:00 AM

….you are sooooooooooooo easily amused!…Lol.

JugEarsButtHurt on July 14, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Rand was too affected by his crazy father in his formative years and definitely carries his baggage right or wrong. He has no chance at winning but could nuke someone who could win, right out of the race.

Paul 2.0 is a no go for me for those exact reasons.

Irritable Pundit on July 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Also, for years we have heard the “Al Quaeda”
threat; now it has changed to “ISIS”. What the heck? All of
a sudden this group pops up and starts wreaking havoc in the
middle east? Something smells; I am sure it is coming from
our politicians and media.

Amjean on July 14, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Again, you simply are not very well informed, it would appear. If you actually believe that the media and politicians are behind the genesis of ISIS, then you are simply not to be taken seriously.

A little hint: Think “ISLAM” and you may find the source of that odor you refer to.

bimmcorp on July 14, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Rand backs amnesty and has endorsed McConnell and the tactics used in the MS primary where the GOPe attacked a TP candidate using the rhetoric of the left. Rand is just another sell out in a long list of sell outs. At least his father had the courage of his convictions.

fight like a girl on July 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Why should we listen to Rand “Having voter show an ID to vote is Racist” Paul?

BroncosRock on July 14, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Both are jockeying for position; Perry is looking at the playbook that has worked in the past and Rand thinks he has the playbook for the future. Polling on those over 40 show Perry is right, under 40 shows Rand is right.

Tater Salad on July 14, 2014 at 11:06 AM

Nice to see Paul, unlike dad, knows when something is a No Sale.

These are good debates. These are the type of debates we should be having.

gophergirl on July 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Precisely.

Dropping a few Daisy Cutters on ISIS formations or anyone else who looks like they’re getting ready to make large scale trouble, that I can support.

Bishop on July 14, 2014 at 8:55 AM

We all know how well it stopped the VC.

formwiz on July 14, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Amjean on July 14, 2014 at 9:45 AM

There’s a big difference between a ” war hawk ”
and projecting strength . IMHO ; )

Lucano on July 14, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Depends on one’s interpretation.

Amjean on July 14, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Also, for years we have heard the “Al Quaeda”
threat; now it has changed to “ISIS”. What the heck? All of
a sudden this group pops up and starts wreaking havoc in the
middle east? Something smells; I am sure it is coming from
our politicians and media.

Amjean on July 14, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Again, you simply are not very well informed, it would appear. If you actually believe that the media and politicians are behind the genesis of ISIS, then you are simply not to be taken seriously.

A little hint: Think “ISLAM” and you may find the source of that odor you refer to.

bimmcorp on July 14, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Boy, are you dense.

Amjean on July 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM

I find myself mostly agreeing with Paul ON THIS ISSUE. However would never support him for POTUS after three strikes on last three at bats:

1.) Supported McConnell (by itself not that bad).

But then:

2.) Against Voter ID.

3.) For Amnesty.

conservative5 on July 14, 2014 at 11:31 AM

In the neo-con world, refusal to get involved in a senseless war that has no possible good outcome for us = treason. We MUST get involved in ALL senseless wars or the world won’t respect us!!!

AngusMc on July 14, 2014 at 11:31 AM

sauldalinsky on July 14, 2014 at 9:11 AM

That’ll leave a mark. The naif needs to get out more in flyover country before he can call himself a conservative. No fanfare for the common man in this pundit.

AH_C on July 14, 2014 at 11:40 AM

It’s clear that Paul is as complete an idiot when it comes to international affairs as his crazy daddy or Obama who Paul lauded when he pulled stakes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Happy Nomad on July 14, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Really? I’d say the clown who suggested that we re-invade Iraq is the complete idiot

JohnGalt23 on July 14, 2014 at 11:40 AM

Are these really the only choices?

Oh dear.

You know wearing glasses really doesn’t make you smarter.

petunia on July 14, 2014 at 11:56 AM

We all know how well it stopped the VC when liberal politicians intentionally sabotaged the war effort and all but outright surrendered to the enemy.

formwiz on July 14, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Fixed it for you, public school graduate.

In the neo-con world, refusal to get involved in a senseless war that has no possible good outcome for us = treason. We MUST get involved in ALL senseless wars or the world won’t respect us!!!

AngusMc on July 14, 2014 at 11:31 AM

I’ll give you that on two conditions:

1. With Obama at the helm, any war is senseless because he’s too stupid to conduct it successfully.
2. Our refusal to fight like we mean it (we haven’t done so since WW2 or MAYBE Vietnam minus the political side) seals the deal when inept leadership doesn’t.

It’s going to take something very nasty to make it clear to us that when it’s time to go to war, half-baked occupations don’t ensure our safety.

Let’s quote Steve jobs here and say ” here’s to the crazy ones.”

coolrepublica on July 14, 2014 at 10:32 AM

And this from you, no less.

Here’s to the people ‘crazy’ enough to suggest that we not go punch more hornets’ nests when we’ve got several trillion dollars worth of overdue doctor bills.

LawfulGood on July 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Depends on one’s interpretation.
Amjean
Or on one’s actions .

Lucano on July 14, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Rand Paul is parroting his dad’s foreign policy from 1977 and he accuses Perry of “being stuck in the past”?

chasdal on July 14, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Crap. I was interested in an article about Perry and Paul and didn’t notice it was written by Rothman, er, Noah Rothman. I don’t know why anyone on HA would want to read an article by this guy. I know I just wasted ten minutes on it. Didn’t Rothman used to write for Politico or Slate, or something like that?

NOMOBO on July 14, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Paul vs. Perry, Round 2: Rand says Rick is ‘stuck in the past’

He old school. We new school.

“Stuck in the past” is one of the most vapid “arguments” that can be used in modern politics. If your position doesn’t have more merit than being supposedly “new,” then there is no reason to give it any respect.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, because it’s, you know, old and stuff.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 14, 2014 at 12:27 PM

I’m with Perry all the way. And he’s not advocating invading countries for crying out loud.

Jack_Burton on July 14, 2014 at 12:30 PM

First of all we have not been training the Iraqi Army for a decade.We trained them for less than four years. No small detail and his hyperbole is disappointing.

NeoKong on July 14, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Training started in 2005 so it has been a very long time. It is now 2014.

It doesn’t take four years to train an army. World War Two was 44 months of war from Dec 7th, 1941 to the end. The US fought and won World War Two in less time than what you are claiming is insufficient to train the Iraqi’s.

US divisions in World War Two were trained in 18 months to 2 years. Lower level formations can be trained in even less time.

None of what you said addresses the FACT that they dropped their weapons and RAN.

You cannot make them believe in what they do not believe in.

sharrukin on July 14, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Many of us on the left, for the first time in a long time, don’t have the knee jerk reaction to vote against the republican candidate, if its Rand Paul.

He at least is becoming a voice worth listening to, and its been a long time since the right produced one of those.

everdiso on July 14, 2014 at 12:47 PM

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?

Exactly! Perry starts out by calling the desire not to get involved in foreign conflicts “isolationist”. That is the BIG LIE war-mongering meddlers like Perry use to tar people who think we should peacefully trade with foreign countries, not try and change them when they are no threat to us, and neither Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran until we started meddling in their business.

With Iran it was the CIA overthrowing their democratically elected government and putting in our puppet, the Shah. and with Afghanistan, after we beat the crap out of al-Qaeda we should have left. We have no business nation-building when we can’t even keep our own country from turning into a fascist police state.

earlgrey on July 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Isolationism was a feature of American foreign policy in the past. WW2 pretty much cured us of the delusion that we could withdraw from the world. We’re actually seeing a pattern that has repeated in our past, where a war ends, and the American people quite naturally want to withdraw and avoid war, and then get dragged into one by world events anyway.

The exact same thing happened after World War 1. We tried to withdraw and avoid war, and then got dragged into World War 2 after all. If we hadn’t been so isolationist in the interim, we would have been far better prepared and lost far less lives.

Isolationism does not save lives. It gets perceived as weakness, and perveived weakness has cost more American lives than warmongering ever did.

As for people complaining about the use of the term “isolationist,” I think Rand Paul opened that door when he claimed that Perry was “stuck in the past.” Isolationism is part of history, and therefore a position that could be described as isolationist could accurately be called “stuck in the past.”

The real question is, what is in America’s best interests? We may not care all that much about Iraq, but we have a vested interest in monitoring sources of terror and Muslim radicals, and taking steps to mitigate any perceived threat.

And it is unquestionably in America’s best interests to keep faith with our allies. We’ve already seen Iraq get closer ties to Iran in part because they don’t trust us to stick around. If Iraq is threatened, they will turn to whoever shows promise of helping them out. That may well be Russia or China.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 14, 2014 at 1:16 PM

Anyone follow Rand Paul on Facebook? He posted this article and comments seem to be overwhelming against him and for Perry.

Jack_Burton on July 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM

I also question whether the Iraq War was worth it, seeing how it’s turned out. But my perception might’ve been different if the outcome was handled by someone more competent than Obama. And any future conflicts could be plagued by changes in politicians resulting in grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory, so why go there?

NbyNW on July 14, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Getting back involved in Iraq is bad strategy. I don’t know what else there is to say.

I have accepted the majority of Muslims are out of touch with modern civilization and will have a hard time adapting to democracy. Same with Communists. If you start with that view everything makes sense in the Islamic world.

The best American geopolitical strategy right now is to allow the Islamic world to devolve into a sectarian civil war, redeploy our now limited military resources to Asia (to limit China), and Eastern Europe (to limit Putin), and to clean up our own hemisphere…aka Venezuela.

The Islamic world is a trap that will suck any nation dry if they are stupid enough to try to fix it, or stabilize it. The only military option in that part of the world is campaigns of retribution. I don’t think Rick Perry, or the other supporters of America getting back involved in Iraq, has that in mind. Instead they seem convinced you can make Iraq a civilized and stable place using democracy….a Islamic democracy.

It is just comically stupid…

William Eaton on July 14, 2014 at 1:32 PM

The real question is, what is in America’s best interests? We may not care all that much about Iraq, but we have a vested interest in monitoring sources of terror and Muslim radicals, and taking steps to mitigate any perceived threat.

A good question.

The US has backed the Muslims in Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Gaza Strip, intervened in Somalia, Libya, demanded that Mubarak of Egypt leave power, backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, installed Sharia law in Afghanistan and Iraq, is currently supplying weapons, training, and funds to Syrian rebels and ISIS came out of Syria as well which didn’t work out too well.

How much of this was in America’s best interests?

And it is unquestionably in America’s best interests to keep faith with our allies.

Allies?

Is Iraq an ally? Is Karzai of Afghanistan an ally?
Is Pakistan an ally? Where did we find Bin Ladin again?
Is the Wahhabist exporting Saudi Arabia an ally? Where did the majority of the 911 hijackers come from?

America’s best interest?

Our allies seem to be as dangerous as those we call our enemies.

We’ve already seen Iraq get closer ties to Iran in part because they don’t trust us to stick around. If Iraq is threatened, they will turn to whoever shows promise of helping them out. That may well be Russia or China.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 14, 2014 at 1:16 PM

They are a Shia government and Iran is Shia. That reality is why a Shia majority country like Iraq will turn to Shia Iran.

That was always going to be the case unless a minority Sunni government was put into power in Baghdad. That reality is over a thousand years old, and nothing we do is going to change that.

A democratic Iraq was always going to collapse. It isn’t a country.

Simply put, we need to pick sides… Shia or Sunni, or stay out.

sharrukin on July 14, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Do you think Islam is compatible with Democracy, or a Constitutional Republic with a bill of rights…etc?

If you say yes: You will be for a robust American commitment in Iraq.

If you say no: You will be against a robust American commitment in Iraq.

You can be a flaming hawk, like me, and still say no. It does not mean you are for, or against Rand Paul. I have my doubts about Rand Paul, but I know what Rick Perry is pushing here is a mistake.

What bothers me is the labelling people isolationists just because they are against another Iraqi reconstruction adventure. Just because you are a self professed hawk and supporter of the U.S. military does not make you also smart strategically.

Paul may or may not be isolationist. If he is that is a problem, but it is less of a problem than those who are convinced of Islamic liberty.

William Eaton on July 14, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Boy, are you dense.

Amjean on July 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM

That’s all you have for a rebuttal, lady?? Really?

You make the claim that the media and politicians are at the root of ISIS, and I counter with the notion that Islam is behind it.

And in your learned view, I am dense.

You and verbaldouche ought to hook up. Two peas in a pod, I would say…

bimmcorp on July 14, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Many of us on the left, for the first time in a long time, don’t have the knee jerk reaction to vote against the republican candidate, if its Rand Paul.

He at least is becoming a voice worth listening to, and its been a long time since the right produced one of those.

everdiso on July 14, 2014 at 12:47 PM

All the more reason to oppose Rand Paul…

bimmcorp on July 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Does Perry now believe that we should send U.S. troops back into Iraq to fight the Iranians—or to help Iran fight ISIS?

Well I’m sure Perry has an answer for that. If President, he will send our Army to fight on the side of the Shiites and send our Marines to fight on the side of the Sunnis.

VorDaj on July 14, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Paul is right to say that we shouldn’t send troops back to the mid-East to fight others battles, and anyone who thinks that we should is delusional. We pissed away over a $ trillion on wars in the past decade plus. Furthermore, we have a political class that continually ties the hands of the troops with overly restrictive rules of engagement when they are in a war zone – even the hawks were guilty of this. It’s not isolationist to suggest we shouldn’t have troops committed to every conflict in the world.

Besides, it’s not foreign policy that will sink Rand Paul. It’s his open-borders insanity, and if he doesn’t re-think that and do a 180 in light of what’s happening now, he won’t even be competitive in the primaries.

thirteen28 on July 14, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Rick Perry is as dead in the water for President as Dan Quayle, and for the exact same reason. He has been successfully asassinated as stupid by the Demon-crat left. He may run. He may campaign. But he has zero chance to win for us. Sorry. Good guy though.

rraaww on July 14, 2014 at 2:58 PM

The real question is, what is in America’s best interests? We may not care all that much about Iraq, but we have a vested interest in monitoring sources of terror and Muslim radicals, and taking steps to mitigate any perceived threat.

A good question.

The US has backed the Muslims in Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Gaza Strip, intervened in Somalia, Libya, demanded that Mubarak of Egypt leave power, backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, installed Sharia law in Afghanistan and Iraq, is currently supplying weapons, training, and funds to Syrian rebels and ISIS came out of Syria as well which didn’t work out too well.

How much of this was in America’s best interests?

You’d have to answer that on a case-by-case basis. Kosovo was not in our best interests. It was a political intervention based on two things:
1) the claim of genocide
2) keeping it cost-free by only dropping bombs from afar.

But then, Clinton tended to calculate based on what was in HIS best interests, rather than America’s best interests.

The Gaza strip was not in our best interests, but supporting Israel, as an ally, is. So it was contrary to our best interests. Although I don’t think we did enough in Gaza to include it on this list.

Somalia was rather self-evidently not particularly in our interests, neither did the Clinton administration provide the necessary support to the troops over there, leading to the whole “Blackhawk Down” scenario. Again, a classic Clinton deployment.

As for Libya, in the Bush administration Kaddhafi announced he was reforming, giving up long-standing support for terrorism, and basically making nice with us. All this was unquestionably in America’s best interests.

Then Obama suddenly decided to push Kaddhafi out of power, even though at this point he had ended his belligerence and was closer to an ally. Anyone with half a brain could see that was not in our best interests, and that he should have been left alone as long as he was behaving.

Demanding Mubarak leave power was incredibly stupid. The result was unquestionably a loss of stability, and Mubarak had been relatively well-behaved with us.

The Obama administration seems to be consistently making the worst of all possible choices.

And it is unquestionably in America’s best interests to keep faith with our allies.

Allies?

Is Iraq an ally? Is Karzai of Afghanistan an ally?
Is Pakistan an ally? Where did we find Bin Ladin again?
Is the Wahhabist exporting Saudi Arabia an ally? Where did the majority of the 911 hijackers come from?

America’s best interest?

Our allies seem to be as dangerous as those we call our enemies.

sharrukin on July 14, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Iraq was an ally, though the failure to get a SOFA agreement dismantled a bunch of the practical alliance.

Karzai is an ally, though the announcement that we are abandoning him piece by piece was virtually guaranteed to leave him making alliances with people who are NOT our allies.

Pakistan was an ally, but one that had precious little control over parts of their own country, including where bin Laden was found. Plus, major elements of the Pakistani intelligence service are sympathetic to the Taliban, even while the government officially was working with us. An imperfect ally, certainly.

Saudi Arabia is nominally an ally, for what it’s worth.

The real world truth is that even some of our allies have factions that are our enemies. If they’re nominally our allies, then we should be able to use that influence — that wish of theirs to remain allies — to push them into being better allies.

And if they’re not going to be allies, then they should be treated as enemies.

Unfortunately, the leftist way is to treat your allies with contempt and suck up to your enemies. I guarantee that Pakistan, for instance, is less friendly to us now than they were before Obama. And Karzai is already feeling that he can’t depend on any promises from the US. As is Iraq. Meanwhile, we’re busy removing all negative consequences from Iran in hopes they will be nice to us.

Just look at the Shah of Iran, not exactly pure of heart, but an ally of the US. Until we basically encouraged his overthrow.

That huge mistake from the Carter era has been the template for the disastrous “Arab Spring.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 14, 2014 at 3:25 PM

You’d have to answer that on a case-by-case basis.

So next to nothing that the US has been doing is actually in America’s best interest.

So why keep doing it?

Iraq was an ally

Karzai is an ally

Pakistan was an ally

Saudi Arabia is nominally an ally, for what it’s worth.

The real world truth is that even some of our allies have factions that are our enemies. If they’re nominally our allies, then we should be able to use that influence — that wish of theirs to remain allies — to push them into being better allies.

I simply disagree.

They are not allies. We cannot rely on them and they have often made this very clear. They make us of American cash, support and weapons, but return nothing.

And Karzai is already feeling that he can’t depend on any promises from the US.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 14, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Karzai has already said he would fight against the United States if he had to choose sides.

Pakistan is supplying the Taliban and Saudi Arabia is supplying ISIS.

sharrukin on July 14, 2014 at 3:36 PM

They are a Shia government and Iran is Shia. That reality is why a Shia majority country like Iraq will turn to Shia Iran.

That was always going to be the case unless a minority Sunni government was put into power in Baghdad. That reality is over a thousand years old, and nothing we do is going to change that.

A democratic Iraq was always going to collapse. It isn’t a country.

Simply put, we need to pick sides… Shia or Sunni, or stay out.

sharrukin on July 14, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Fixed.

Let them fight it out amongst themselves. We can’t fix there problem and we have no business trying any sort of nation building over there.

Machiavelli had this figured out over 500 years ago:

“And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.”

thirteen28 on July 14, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Fixed.

Let them fight it out amongst themselves. We can’t fix there problem and we have no business trying any sort of nation building over there.

thirteen28 on July 14, 2014 at 3:37 PM

I agree. Neither side is particularily friendly towards us.

sharrukin on July 14, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Isolationism was a feature of American foreign policy in the past. WW2 pretty much cured us of the delusion that we could withdraw from the world. We’re actually seeing a pattern that has repeated in our past, where a war ends, and the American people quite naturally want to withdraw and avoid war, and then get dragged into one by world events anyway.

WW2 was a war of necessity, run efficiently, planned with a clear target, attained that target in a reasonable amount of time, that ended when that target was reached.

This mideast conflict is absolutely unnecessary, with no clear target or even a clear enemy, extremely poorly planned, with no target attained in over a decade of trying, and no end in sight.

Using WW2 as a comparison perfectly encapsulates the difference between a justified foreign intervention and a totally unjustified one.

War as a last result is a good foreign policy. Endless foreign occupation is an assinine foreign policy.

everdiso on July 14, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Last resort, not result.

everdiso on July 14, 2014 at 4:08 PM

America is tired of these wars. Paul understands that. Some in the GOP refuse to accept it and keep on talking like its 2003.

There is a theoretical best policy and then there is an actual reality where the best policy is the one that can be sustained long-term with the most amount of bi-partisan support. This is a lesson the GOP, as a whole, has yet to learn on foreign policy.

In short, getting the policy right for 4 years then getting tossed out of office and the that right policy gutted and/or reversed leads to chaos and bad foreign policy outcomes. It is far better in foreign policy to have a consistent and sustainable policy that is just moderately successful.

hamiltmc on July 14, 2014 at 5:20 PM

…It is hard to argue against Paul on the topic of Iraq….

on the other hand, he is one of the absolute worst when it
comes to immigration…”They’re doing it for Love”
isn’t that right Rand? – ToddPA at 9:03 AM

That was Jeb Bush with the love-makes-them-invade-us bit.

I’ve listened to Rand trying to triangulate this for some time and I think he favors giving out green cards but no pathway to citizenship. And deporting anyone who won’t sign up and fulfill the green card requirements or overstays their visa. About half of all the “illegals” are visa overstayers, not border invaders.

Toocon on July 14, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Isolationism was a feature of American foreign policy in the past. WW2 pretty much cured us of the delusion that we could withdraw from the world. We’re actually seeing a pattern that has repeated in our past, where a war ends, and the American people quite naturally want to withdraw and avoid war, and then get dragged into one by world events anyway.

WW2 was a war of necessity, run efficiently, planned with a clear target, attained that target in a reasonable amount of time, that ended when that target was reached.

This mideast conflict is absolutely unnecessary, with no clear target or even a clear enemy, extremely poorly planned, with no target attained in over a decade of trying, and no end in sight.

Using WW2 as a comparison perfectly encapsulates the difference between a justified foreign intervention and a totally unjustified one.

War as a last result is a good foreign policy. Endless foreign occupation is an assinine foreign policy.

everdiso on July 14, 2014 at 4:07 PM

You certainly earn an award for your ability to completely miss the point. I’m not comparing WW2 to now. I’m comparing the period between WW1 and WW2, when there was no really immediate threat, to this period.

The relevance is this: We were so isolationist before WW2 that we were completely unprepared. While it’s true that we won, it required an extreme effort to catch up. While we were napping in an isolationist dream, the Germans were outstripping us militarily. Our weapons were outdated, our military was small and unready. By the time we were able to enter the war in a relevant way, Germany had conquered France, Poland, and other large chunks of Europe. If they hadn’t tried to fight against Russia at the same time, there’s no telling how many more lives would have been lost.

Since World War 2, the primary goal of American foreign policy has been to not make the mistakes we made in WW2: to not let the world get into such an unstable and dangerous state that we have to suddenly draft every able-bodied man in the country, triple all our military spending, drive our entire economy towards producing war materiel, and institute rationing just to be able to fight and win a war that could have been avoided if we had just responsed to threats as they arose and maintained our military strength.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 14, 2014 at 6:22 PM