Rand Paul: It Was a 'Mistake' to Overthrow Saddam Hussein

[mystery-ak]

http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx/?nodeid=641101


Newsmax
Rand Paul: It Was a 'Mistake' to Overthrow Saddam Hussein
Monday, April 27, 2015 07:18 PM

By: Cathy Burke

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul says it was a big "mistake" to topple Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein – and that it may have made Iran "twice as strong as it was before the Iraq War."

Speaking to Orthodox Jews at the Torah Umesorah Hebrew Day School in Brooklyn, N.Y., Paul also said he doesn't support war with Iran over its nuclear bomb program, and blamed Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton for the turmoil in Libya after U.S. forces dumped Moammar Gadhafi, the New York Observer reports.

Paul also warns that any attempt to oust Syrian dictator Bashar Assad would only lead to the Islamic State's (ISIS) being "in charge of Damascus."

"Each time we topple a secular dictator, I think we wind up with chaos and radical Islam seems to rise," the libertarian-leaning Kentucky lawmaker told the conservative audience, the Observer reports.

"All the way back to the Iraq War, I think it was a mistake to topple Hussein," he said. "Hussein was the bulwark against Iran. The Sunnis didn't like the Shiites, now Iraq is a vassal state for Iran."

"I'm worried [Iran] is twice as strong as it was before the Iraq War."

Paul, who has been questioned about his support for Israel, attended the meeting in a bid to bolster his relationship with the Jewish community, The Hill reports.

"I think Israel is one of our best allies and best friends around the world. They're the only democracy in the Middle East, and I'm very supportive," he said.

But he contends that Clinton, as secretary of state, made a mess of things in the Middle East.

"Foreign policy has a spectrum," Paul said, the Observer reports. "Hillary's war in Libya is, was, and continues to be an utter disaster. Gadhafi wasn't a good guy, but he suppressed radical Islam. Now that Gadhafi is gone, the country is in civil war, the ambassador was killed, our embassy fled … the country is divided and a third of the country supports ISIS."

[truth_seeker]

He is becoming increasingly difficult to credit him with a solid philosophy for our national security.

It was his Achilles Heel, with me. He is going backwards, not forwards, for credibility.

[mountaineer]

With which of his comments do you disagree, t_s?

[Relic]

It was a mistake to overthrow Saddam. That's why GHW Bush stopped short.

[Luis Gonzalez]

 Pete Carroll: It Was a "Mistake" to Pass the Ball and Not Hand it to MarShawn Lynch.

Monday Morning quarterbacks have perfect completion records.

[truth_seeker]

With which of his comments do you disagree, t_s?

I find that he is all across the map, on national security. He is inconsistent.

One day it is NOT okay to kill Americans overseas, but now it is.

[ABX]

The only mistake was not sticking to it 100%, putting in and supporting a favorable government, and truly kicking the a** of anyone who opposed us. We tried to be too politically correct (for lack of a better term) and the war was fought with lawyers looking over everyone's shoulders. It needed boldness but it needed to be done.

[mountaineer]

I find that he is all across the map, on national security. He is inconsistent.

One day it is NOT okay to kill Americans overseas, but now it is.

Perhaps he is, and I probably have some national security/foreign policy disagreements with him, too,  but I was asking with which statements cited above - specifically - on Saddam Hussein do you disagree?

[massadvj]

I admire Paul for saying what many Republicans think, but are afraid to express.  That war was a $2 trillion mistake.  We handed Iran a Sunni client state paid for by the US taxpayer.

If anything, the Monday morning quarterbacking is coming fro those who continue to try to justify that war by suggesting "if only" this or "if only" that.  The truth is, the Iraq war cost the Republicans the congress in 2006 and was a big part of Dubya's unpopularity, which cost us the presidency in 2008.

It is only now that we are crawling out, and what are the Republicans doing?  Beating the drums for war yet again, without thinking through who the real winners and losers will be if we become engaged.

I don't support OPapaDoc's policies, mostly because he projects weakness.  But I am grateful for his resistance to jumping into some situations.  His biggest mistakes were when he did get involved: Egypt and Libya.

Reagan was smart enough to see that the Middle East was a quagmire he wanted nothing to do with.  I hope our next Republican president will as well.  It is time we stopped the perpetual war.  We have the resources domestically to become energy independent, so we no longer have an existential reason for taming the Middle East.

I say protect the homeland, let Muslims kill Muslims, and if anyone dares tread upon us, swiftly and unmercifully deal with them and then get the hell out.

[aligncare]

Good post. Agree with much of it.

[alicewonders]

I admire Paul for saying what many Republicans think, but are afraid to express.  That war was a $2 trillion mistake.  We handed Iran a Sunni client state paid for by the US taxpayer.

If anything, the Monday morning quarterbacking is coming fro those who continue to try to justify that war by suggesting "if only" this or "if only" that.  The truth is, the Iraq war cost the Republicans the congress in 2006 and was a big part of Dubya's unpopularity, which cost us the presidency in 2008.

It is only now that we are crawling out, and what are the Republicans doing?  Beating the drums for war yet again, without thinking through who the real winners and losers will be if we become engaged.

I don't support OPapaDoc's policies, mostly because he projects weakness.  But I am grateful for his resistance to jumping into some situations.  His biggest mistakes were when he did get involved: Egypt and Libya.

Reagan was smart enough to see that the Middle East was a quagmire he wanted nothing to do with.  I hope our next Republican president will as well.  It is time we stopped the perpetual war.  We have the resources domestically to become energy independent, so we no longer have an existential reason for taming the Middle East.

I say protect the homeland, let Muslims kill Muslims, and if anyone dares tread upon us, swiftly and unmercifully deal with them and then get the hell out.

 

I'm so tired of war in the Middle East, let these barbarians fight it out among themselves without our help.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I admire Paul for saying what many Republicans think, but are afraid to express.  That war was a $2 trillion mistake.  We handed Iran a Sunni client state paid for by the US taxpayer.

If anything, the Monday morning quarterbacking is coming fro those who continue to try to justify that war by suggesting "if only" this or "if only" that.  The truth is, the Iraq war cost the Republicans the congress in 2006 and was a big part of Dubya's unpopularity, which cost us the presidency in 2008.

It is only now that we are crawling out, and what are the Republicans doing?  Beating the drums for war yet again, without thinking through who the real winners and losers will be if we become engaged.

I don't support OPapaDoc's policies, mostly because he projects weakness.  But I am grateful for his resistance to jumping into some situations.  His biggest mistakes were when he did get involved: Egypt and Libya.

Reagan was smart enough to see that the Middle East was a quagmire he wanted nothing to do with.  I hope our next Republican president will as well.  It is time we stopped the perpetual war.  We have the resources domestically to become energy independent, so we no longer have an existential reason for taming the Middle East.

I say protect the homeland, let Muslims kill Muslims, and if anyone dares tread upon us, swiftly and unmercifully deal with them and then get the hell out.

 :thumbsup3:

[Relic]

I admire Paul for saying what many Republicans think, but are afraid to express.  That war was a $2 trillion mistake.  We handed Iran a Sunni client state paid for by the US taxpayer.

If anything, the Monday morning quarterbacking is coming fro those who continue to try to justify that war by suggesting "if only" this or "if only" that.  The truth is, the Iraq war cost the Republicans the congress in 2006 and was a big part of Dubya's unpopularity, which cost us the presidency in 2008.

It is only now that we are crawling out, and what are the Republicans doing?  Beating the drums for war yet again, without thinking through who the real winners and losers will be if we become engaged.

I don't support OPapaDoc's policies, mostly because he projects weakness.  But I am grateful for his resistance to jumping into some situations.  His biggest mistakes were when he did get involved: Egypt and Libya.

Reagan was smart enough to see that the Middle East was a quagmire he wanted nothing to do with.  I hope our next Republican president will as well.  It is time we stopped the perpetual war.  We have the resources domestically to become energy independent, so we no longer have an existential reason for taming the Middle East.

I say protect the homeland, let Muslims kill Muslims, and if anyone dares tread upon us, swiftly and unmercifully deal with them and then get the hell out.

I couldn't agree with you more. And to amplify on the point regarding war, this conservative, right wing, veteran, gun owning, potential domestic terrorist (per: DHS), is beyond tired of the US sending our sons and daughters to die for no good reason. I have said it to my liberal/moderate friends, I intensely dislike Obama, but I do agree with him not pulling the trigger on more military interventions.

[Bigun]

The Sunnis didn't like the Shiites, now Iraq is a vassal state for Iran."

I agree with that part. For as long as the Mullah's remain in charge in Iran the Middle East will remain in turmoil!

[musiclady]

I'm going to disagree with the majority here.

I still believe that it was the right decision to go into Iraq.  There were mistakes along the way that prolonged the problems (causing the loss in 2006), but we had the country under control by 2008, and we had an ally in the ME.

The biggest problems were not the cost (war is expensive, and we had no rationing at home as in WWII), nor the loss of life (it was a very small number relative to any other war).  The real problem was that the leftist media created a 'war weary' nation with their hostility toward Bush and our troops, when in reality, the only people in America who suffered because of the war were those of us who had sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters in harm's way.

The loss of Iraq in the hands of Barack HUSSEIN Obama was purely political and anti-American.  If we had a patriot who followed Bush and any real journalists in the media, the memory of Iraq would be entirely different.

We would remember that we toppled a tyrant.
We would remember that Saddam was still at war with us in 2003.
We would remember that we killed thousands of terrorists during the conflict.
We would remember that we had an ally in the ME, however shaky.

True, the warring factions in the ME have thousands of years of history, but we DID create one stable country in the heart of the ME.

It is Obama who lost it.

[sinkspur]

He is becoming increasingly difficult to credit him with a solid philosophy for our national security.

It was his Achilles Heel, with me. He is going backwards, not forwards, for credibility.

Paul's a weather vane, the worst thing a politician can be.

[aligncare]

All excellent points, m'lady. Which is why I had some reservation about massadvj's original post.

However I do agree with massadvj's larger point. I, too, would love to see a day when the US can extricate itself from the Middle East quagmire.

[musiclady]

All excellent points, m'lady. Which is why I had some reservation about massadvj's original post.

However I do agree with massadvj's larger point. I, too, would love to see a day when the US can extricate itself from the Middle East quagmire.

No disagreement on that point other than in matters where our national security is at stake.

As long as the bad guys in the ME are targeting us ("Death to America") we're going to need to be involved there.

Not to be trite, but it is what it is.  They hate us.

[Rivergirl]

Guess all those scud missiles fired at Israel were just a little inconvenience.  All those Saddam payments to terrorists attacking Israel....surely not a concern for Ron or Rand Paul. 
As for those chemical weapons.......all those centrifuges were for pharmaceuticals, right!!!!

[MACVSOG68]

The only mistake was not sticking to it 100%, putting in and supporting a favorable government, and truly kicking the a** of anyone who opposed us. We tried to be too politically correct (for lack of a better term) and the war was fought with lawyers looking over everyone's shoulders. It needed boldness but it needed to be done.

I agree with both you and ML.  The mistake wasn't the invasion and ultimate overthrow of Saddam, but the failure to follow through militarily.  We didn't control the borders or secure the arms caches.  We tossed the trained military aside as well as the government bureaucrats.  We allowed Shiite firebrands to openly call for ;and perpetrate revolt. 

As for the theory that toppling Saddam created ISIS, since both are (were) Sunnis, I doubt it.  The mess we made in Syria plus our hurry to extricate ourselves from Iraq after the peace was finally secured were the primary causes of today's issues.

[EC]

Was it needed? Yes, it was, though not for the reasons originally given. It could have waited a year or so though, allowing full focus on dealing with Afghanistan first. Still, the coalition was fragmenting and it was politically more expedient to strike while 9/11 was still a fresh sore in the world's mind.

We tossed the trained military aside ....

As for the theory that toppling Saddam created ISIS, since both are (were) Sunnis, I doubt it.

With respect, ISIS is the dismissed trained military - or at least a solid core of it. If the military had been left mostly intact and under no misunderstanding about what would and would not be considered acceptable by the US, they'd have shrugged and mostly agreed as a coup by another means.

[MACVSOG68]

Was it needed? Yes, it was, though not for the reasons originally given. It could have waited a year or so though, allowing full focus on dealing with Afghanistan first. Still, the coalition was fragmenting and it was politically more expedient to strike while 9/11 was still a fresh sore in the world's mind.

With respect, ISIS is the dismissed trained military - or at least a solid core of it. If the military had been left mostly intact and under no misunderstanding about what would and would not be considered acceptable by the US, they'd have shrugged and mostly agreed as a coup by another means.

Timing was definitely a problem with respect to the ongoing Afghan operations.  As an aside, in Vietnam units remained, while filling slots was generally done by individuals.  In Iraq at least as I understand it, whole units came and went after 12 to 18 months.  I prefer the former method for better operational continuity.

Dismissing the military left a huge void and they knew where all the weapons caches were.  Trained military without income...bad scenario.  Slow transitioning would have been far better as we simply didn't have enough troops to properly secure the country and its borders as well as prevent the Shia uprisings.  The surge helped a lot, but by then the damage was done.

[240B]

In Afghan, and in Iraq, the major mistake was George Bush. I'm sure you all remember the "winning the hearts and minds" mantra they kept pushing on us.

These were not 'wars' in the sense that we are going to blow the shit out of enemy, take the country with a reserve force, and then leave. That is what a war is.

No, we were supposed to 'make friends' with fanatic murderers who wanted nothing more than to kill us. Weird.

The Bush strategy on war was, "Yeah, we kind of want to have a war, but we don't want to really hurt anybody." This caused chaos, and a 20 year "military action".

Both of these wars could have been over in 2 years, max 5 years. But, the people in charge at the time didn't have the balls to do what it takes to fight a real war, and, I fear, in fact I know, they still don't.

just my pathetic 2cents.

[EC]

Timing was definitely a problem with respect to the ongoing Afghan operations.  As an aside, in Vietnam units remained, while filling slots was generally done by individuals.  In Iraq at least as I understand it, whole units came and went after 12 to 18 months.  I prefer the former method for better operational continuity.

Agreed. Not just for operational continuity reasons, though they are a hugely important aspect, but it allows the units to make use of familiarity with the residents if nation building is really what you intend (a different kettle of fish and a stinking one too!). Most of our troops in Afghanistan were "individually" rotated (actually more in pairs or 3s) for precisely that reason - it works, it makes life easier in the long run, and you always have a solid core of the unit that knows the area intimately, know the flash points and trap points and who are sort of trusted by the locals to behave (for want of a better term).

Dismissing the military left a huge void and they knew where all the weapons caches were.  Trained military without income...bad scenario.  Slow transitioning would have been far better as we simply didn't have enough troops to properly secure the country and its borders as well as prevent the Shia uprisings.  The surge helped a lot, but by then the damage was done.

To continue the Monday morning quarterbacking  - the surge, had it happened when it was originally requested (I think in 2005?) would have had a long lasting (if not permanent) effect, but I can see why it was held off on. At some stage when you are creating a nation you've got to take the training wheels off and let them handle their own affairs.

[EC]

Both of these wars could have been over in 2 years, max 5 years. But, the people in charge at the time didn't have the balls to do what it takes to fight a real war, and, I fear, in fact I know, they still don't.

just my pathetic 2cents.

No argument from me. "Hearts and minds" and the ridiculous ROE you guys suffered under .... gods, I could rant all day about that.