The Islamic State’s revival was also aided by its sanctuary over the border in Syria as that country revolted against the rule of Bashar Assad. Far from supplying arms to the rebels, Mr. Obama explicitly rejected U.S. intervention in 2011. CIA Director Petraeus and Secretary of State [FONT=Chronicle SSm, serif]Hillary Clinton[/FONT] again advocated aiding the rebels in 2012, but Mr. Obama refused again.
As for the U.S. bombing of Assad, Mr. Paul can’t blame ISIS on something that never happened. Mr. Obama briefly considered bombing in response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons, only to panic at the last minute and toss the decision into Congress after a stroll on the South Lawn. The ensuing Perils-of-Pauline political melodrama, in which Mr. Paul joined the Paulines who opposed any U.S. intervention, guaranteed little was done.
Mr. Paul seems to think he can win the GOP nomination on an anti-interventionist platform, though we think he’d be better off focusing on his domestic agenda. But if he wants to run as an Obama Republican on foreign policy, he shouldn’t also adopt the Obama trick of rewriting history. It reflects poorly on his judgment as a potential Commander in Chief.
Sometimes Rand so gets it. This is The guy who won't stand for the Patriot act being renewed. I wish he was more consistent with these thoughts and not change them for whatever audience he's in front of. Go on Fox News and say this to the crazies. Don't back off. Say it in the Republican debates. THIS Rand Paul is the one I'd support for POTUS, and his last sentence is so right on.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/rand-paul-blames-gop-hawks-rise-isis-31339650
WASHINGTON — May 27, 2015, 4:08 PM ET
By STEVE PEOPLES Associated Press
Spanish soldiers prepare to participate in a training mission with an Iraqi army soldier, left, outside Baghdad, Iraq, Wednesday, May 27, 2015. Islamic State extremists unleashed a wave of suicide attacks targeting the Iraqi army in western Anbar... View Full Caption The Associated Press
Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul is blaming his own party for the rise of the Islamic State group.
The freshman senator from Kentucky said Wednesday that the GOP's foreign policy hawks "created these people." That assertion led potential 2016 rival Bobby Jindal, Louisiana's governor, to say Paul was unqualified to be president.
The Islamic State group, commonly referred to as ISIS, has seized one-third of Iraq and Syria and in recent days made gains in central Iraq.
"ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately," Paul said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." He continued: "They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved — they loved Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. They just wanted more of it."
Foreign policy has emerged as a central debate in the 2016 Republican presidential primary.
Many of Paul's Republican colleagues have offered aggressive rhetoric, but few specifics when asked about IS.
Paul favors less military intervention abroad, wants a dramatic reduction in U.S. money to foreign governments and stands in opposition to the Patriot Act and the U.S. policy behind drone strikes. It all makes him something of an outlier on foreign policy and national security in the GOP field.
He stood apart from many in his party in opposing U.S. military action in Syria before the ascension of the Islamic State.
Sensitive to being branded an isolationist in the race, he has scaled back some of his positions, no longer calling for deep cuts in the Pentagon budget, for example, and no longer proposing the elimination of foreign aid, including to Israel.
On the Islamic State, he wants coalitions of Arab troops — instead of U.S. troops — to take the lead on the ground.
Paul's comments also underscore the challenge for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose brother launched the invasion of Iraq more than a decade ago.
Jeb Bush faced pointed questions recently from a college student in Nevada who said former President George W. Bush "created ISIS."
The younger Bush does not blame his brother, but instead accuses the Obama administration of creating a void by withdrawing American forces, creating a vacuum in Iraq that was ultimately filled by the Islamic State group.
Jindal described Paul's comments as "a perfect example of why Senator Paul is unsuited to be commander in chief."
"We have men and women in the military who are in the field trying to fight ISIS right now, and Senator Paul is taking the weakest, most liberal Democrat position," Jindal said. "We should all be clear that evil and radical Islam are at fault for the rise of ISIS, and people like President Obama and Hillary Clinton exacerbate it."
In his interview earlier, Paul described Iraq as "a failed state" and criticized Republicans who condemn his foreign policy as weak.
"Everything that they have talked about in foreign policy, they have been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise," Paul said.
Tony Blair has strongly rejected claims that the 2003 US-UK invasion of Iraq was to blame for the current crisis gripping the country, pointing the finger instead firmly at the Maliki government and the war in Syria.
It was a "bizarre" reading of the situation to argue that the US-British invasion of Iraq had allowed the growth of Sunni jihadist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis), whose fighters have swept through towns and cities north and west of Baghdad over the past week.
"We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that 'we' have caused this. We haven't. We can argue as to whether our policies at points have helped or not: and whether action or inaction is the best policy. But the fundamental cause of the crisis lies within the region not outside it.
IS A
"Everything that they have talked about in foreign policy, they have been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise," Paul said.
Lets take note of someone who knows
BLAIR
In a defence of his actions in Iraq, Blair attacked as "extraordinary" any notion the country would be stable if Saddam Hussein had stayed in power.
"The civil war in Syria with its attendant disintegration is having its predictable and malign effect. Iraq is now in mortal danger. The whole of the Middle East is under threat."
He said it was inevitable that events across Iraq had raised the arguments over the 2003 war. While admitting that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, he said: "What we now know from Syria is that Assad, without any detection from the west, was manufacturing chemical weapons. We only discovered this when he used them. We also know, from the final weapons inspectors' reports, that though it is true that Saddam got rid of the physical weapons, he retained the expertise and capability to manufacture them.
"Is it likely, knowing what we now know about Assad, that Saddam, who had used chemical weapons both against the Iranians in the 1980s war – that resulted in over a million casualties – and against his own people, would have refrained from returning to his old ways? Surely it is at least as likely that he would have gone back to them?"
Blair said a likely scenario was that during the Arab spring Iraq would have been engulfed in civil war which would have blown sectarian conflict across the region. "So it is a bizarre reading of the cauldron that is the Middle East today, to claim that but for the removal of Saddam, we would not have a crisis."
He added that until three years ago al-Qaida had been a "spent force" in Iraq and that the country had had a chance to rebuild itself. "It did not pose a threat to its neighbours. Indeed, since the removal of Saddam, and despite the bloodshed, Iraq had contained its own instability mostly within its own borders.
"Though the challenge of terrorism was and is very real, the sectarianism of the Maliki government snuffed out what was a genuine opportunity to build a cohesive Iraq. This, combined with the failure to use the oil money to rebuild the country, and the inadequacy of the Iraqi forces, have led to the alienation of the Sunni community and the inability of the Iraqi army to repulse the attack on Mosul and the earlier loss of Falluja. And there will be debate about whether the withdrawal of US forces happened too soon."
He said that the rise of Isis was partly a consequence of the Syrian war. "To argue otherwise is wilful. The operation in Mosul was planned and organised from Raqqa, across the Syria border. The fighters were trained and battle-hardened in the Syrian war.
"At its simplest, the jihadist groups are never going to leave us alone. 9/11 happened for a reason. That reason and the ideology behind it have not disappeared."
He added: "This is, in part, our struggle, whether we like it or not."
There's plenty of blame to go around to both parties. It was a democratic controlled Senate that voted for the Iraq war, and I don't buy the whole we were lied/didn't know argument made by the left. That's your fucking job, to ask the tough questions and find out.
There's no way ISIS would be in Iraq without Sunni support, and there's no way that would happen if the Sunni controlled Baath party was running the government.
There's no way ISIS would be in Iraq without Sunni support, and there's no way that would happen if the Sunni controlled Baath party was running the government.
Tony Blair has strongly rejected claims that the 2003 US-UK invasion of Iraq was to blame for the current crisis gripping the country, pointing the finger instead firmly at the Maliki government and the war in Syria.
It was a "bizarre" reading of the situation to argue that the US-British invasion of Iraq had allowed the growth of Sunni jihadist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis), whose fighters have swept through towns and cities north and west of Baghdad over the past week.
"We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that 'we' have caused this. We haven't. We can argue as to whether our policies at points have helped or not: and whether action or inaction is the best policy. But the fundamental cause of the crisis lies within the region not outside it.
Sorry SB but Blair is the same level idiot as W.
BLAIR.
For the last 40/50 years, there has been a steady stream of funding, proselytising, organising and promulgating coming out of the Middle East, pushing views of religion that are narrow minded and dangerous.
Unfortunately we seem blind to the enormous global impact such teaching has had and is having.
Within the Middle East itself, the result has been horrible, with people often facing a choice between authoritarian Government that is at least religiously tolerant; and the risk that in throwing off the Government they don't like, they end up with a religiously intolerant quasi-theocracy.
Take a step back and analyse the world today: with the possible exception of Latin America (leaving aside Hezbollah in the tri-border area in South America), there is not a region of the world not adversely affected by Islamism and the ideology is growing. The problems of the Mid East and North Africa are obvious. But look at the terror being inflicted in countries – Nigeria, Mali, Central African Republic, Chad and many others – across Sub Saharan Africa. Indeed I would argue that that religious extremism is possibly the single biggest threat to their ability to overcome the massive challenges of development today.
In Central Asia, terrorist attacks are regular occurrences in Russia, whose Muslim population is now over 15%, and radical influences are stretching across the whole of the central part of Northern Asia, reaching even the Western province of Xinjiang in China.
In the Far East, there has been the important breakthrough in resolving the Mindanao dispute in the Philippines, where well over 100,000 people lost their lives in the last decade or so. But elsewhere, in Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Indonesia, there remain real inter-religious challenges and tensions. In the recent Indonesian elections, the Islamic parties received a third of the vote.
The Muslim population in Europe is now over 40m and growing. The Muslim Brotherhood and other organisations are increasingly active and they operate without much investigation or constraint. Recent controversy over schools in Birmingham (and similar allegations in France) show heightened levels of concern about Islamist penetration of our own societies"
BLAIR
"Three years ago al-Qaida had been a "spent force" in Iraq and that the country had had a chance to rebuild itself. "It did not pose a threat to its neighbours. Indeed, since the removal of Saddam, and despite the bloodshed, Iraq had contained its own instability mostly within its own borders.
History will make its own judgement of Tony Blair. He is still a big figure. He will, in my view, be seen as one next century too. Few Prime Ministers achieve social change – Blair did. Fewer still can point to a physical transformation of their country – Blair can. With a rewriting of the UK constitution in addition, he will be remembered long after others are forgotten.
John McTernan was Tony Blair’s political secretary from 2005 to 2007
this
and this
This article outlines some of the key points and reminds us how stupid Rand Paul is on this topic:
Third, the demonstrably hands-off approach to these developments by President Barack Obama manifests the end of America’s great power role in organizing and stabilizing the region.
...
Saudi Arabia’s recent bombing campaign against Iran-backed Houthi tribesmen in Yemen and Riyadh’s renewed intensification of support for anti-Iranian Syrian rebels (helped also by Turkey and Qatar) is a reaction to what Riyadh sees as an impending American-Iranian nuclear accord. Indeed, the Saudis are already factoring into their calculations the strong possibility of such a deal, and thus the bombing in Yemen and recent pressure on the pro-Iranian Assad regime in Syria represent — ahead of the actual fact — the post-nuclear accord Middle East. That accord, if it indeed happens, though limited to nuclear issues, will be viewed with some justification as the beginning of a more general American-Iranian rapprochement-of-sorts: in regional terms, that is, one declining imperial power coming to terms with a rising indigenous power.
To contain a post-accord Iran, the United States will need not only to bolster Saudi Arabia, but Egypt and Turkey as well. Egypt’s security services under de facto military strongman Abdel Fattah el-Sisi are already quietly allied with the Israeli security services in Gaza, Sinai, and elsewhere. America requires a strong Egypt — democratic or not — as a regional anti-Iran ally to bolster Saudi Arabia. While Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not normally viewed as a pro-American country, a strong Turkey in and of itself also helps balance against Iranian power. The jostling among these geographically and historically fortunate powers for regional dominance will define the new post-imperial order.
====
In some sense, Libertarians are fundamentally unserious people.
Third, the demonstrably hands-off approach to these developments by President Barack Obama manifests the end of America’s great power role in organizing and stabilizing the region.
...
Saudi Arabia’s recent bombing campaign against Iran-backed Houthi tribesmen in Yemen and Riyadh’s renewed intensification of support for anti-Iranian Syrian rebels (helped also by Turkey and Qatar) is a reaction to what Riyadh sees as an impending American-Iranian nuclear accord. Indeed, the Saudis are already factoring into their calculations the strong possibility of such a deal, and thus the bombing in Yemen and recent pressure on the pro-Iranian Assad regime in Syria represent — ahead of the actual fact — the post-nuclear accord Middle East. That accord, if it indeed happens, though limited to nuclear issues, will be viewed with some justification as the beginning of a more general American-Iranian rapprochement-of-sorts: in regional terms, that is, one declining imperial power coming to terms with a rising indigenous power.
To contain a post-accord Iran, the United States will need not only to bolster Saudi Arabia, but Egypt and Turkey as well. Egypt’s security services under de facto military strongman Abdel Fattah el-Sisi are already quietly allied with the Israeli security services in Gaza, Sinai, and elsewhere. America requires a strong Egypt — democratic or not — as a regional anti-Iran ally to bolster Saudi Arabia. While Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not normally viewed as a pro-American country, a strong Turkey in and of itself also helps balance against Iranian power. The jostling among these geographically and historically fortunate powers for regional dominance will define the new post-imperial order.
====
In some sense, Libertarians are fundamentally unserious people.
