Rand Paul wants boots on the ground in Iraq
Rand Paul is probably one of the leading contenders at this point for the Republican nomination and the New York Times reports that he wants a declaration of war against ISIS and he wants to put boots on the ground. Yeah, he’ll go without me because of the restrictions he wants to place on the operation;
Mr. Paul…offered a very circumscribed definition of war in his proposal, which he outlined in an interview on Saturday. He would, for instance, limit the duration of military action to one year and significantly restrict the use of ground forces.
I guess no one noticed how poorly those “time line withdrawals” work.
Mr. Paul faces doubts within the Republican Party, particularly among those who take a more traditional interventionist approach, that he is trustworthy on matters of national security and defense. He has sought to shake the “isolationist” label that he believes is unfairly attached to him because of the noninterventionist views of his father, Ron Paul.
Unfairly? We used to have a video posted on this blog, until it mysteriously disappeared a few years ago in which Rand Paul endorsed local madman and IVAW/Code Pink member, Adam Kokesh for Congress. That was in 2010. And now he wants to fight ISIS while putting absurd limits on the troops and he wants to fight ISIS hoping they’ll agree to be defeated within a year. OK, it’s not quite isolationist, but it’s as close as he can get without getting both feet wet in it.
That’s why Senators make poor executives. They make decisions that are so spineless, we’re better off if they’d make no decisions at all. The country needs a leader, from either party, not another fellow who wants to make everyone happy. A leader makes a decision and then convinces everyone that he’s right. That’s not what Paul is doing here.
Category: Terror War
If your going to put boots on the ground to fight ISIS, the Rules of Engagement should allow the troops to do their job, otherwise, what’s the point in even sending them if they can’t fight back on equal or greater terms?
People these days seem to have gotten this weird belief that war is supposed to be fought on equal terms. When we bring overwhelming firepower to bear, engage the enemy with 3 to 1 odds, everyone gets upset and we are labelled as bullies etc. I don’t know where this idea came from or why it has become so widespread. When I go to war, I want overwhelming technological superiority, massive numbers, complete air superiority.
If our government is going to commit us to war, then commit us to war and let us win.
As I’ve said before despite having the men and the tools to do so this country, and this Army, would not let us win a watergun fight.
If Mr. Paul wants boots on the ground so bad how about he send one of his kids over there first. When one of his is in harms way let’s see how quick he is to go to war.
What happened to “All’s Fair in Love and War”? You’re not supposed to have ‘Rules of Engagement’, you’re supposed to use the full might of your forces to win as decisively and quickly as possible to minimize your own losses and put an end to the conflict. The who point is to cause the enemy to lose so many resources, human and otherwise, that they concede in defeat. Then you make sure they can’t engage in war again for a long, long time, if ever.
I like Rand Paul for his limited government ideas – abolish the EPA, IRS, etc. But he’s as stupid at foreign policy as the rest of them.
Ben Franklin also weighs in with “Those who don’t remember history are condemned to repeat it”.
The concept of Rules of Engagement were to give birth to the idea of eternal war.
The Republican Party better unfuck themselves and start paying attention — NO MORE spineless, clueless, militarily castrated politicians for President!!
Either fight with no restrictions or stay home. In other words, this playing at fighting thing isn’t working, hasn’t worked in the at and there is no reason to think that it will have any other outcome in the future.
Failure is not an option. Death by a thousand cuts was done in Viet Nam. It was unacceptable then and still is.
Rand Paul…No
Any Bush….No
Christie….No
Mitt Romney..Hell No
Ted Cruz
No.
To the RNC: Please guys, take Rand Paul off your list of potential candidates and have the balls to tell him to sit down and STFU!”
So he is okay with sending other peoples kids to fight a war they didnt start, with rules they didnt set, in a country most of them cant find on a map…against a fanatical enemy that follows no rules except those they interpret from a mystical book.
No.