WOLF BLITZER, CNN: In an article you wrote for CNN.com, you wrote this, I’ll put it up on the screen. You said, “America’s wars must be debated by Congress, declared constitutionally and fought only for the interests and security of the United States. They should never be fought to save face.”
All right, so what do you mean by that when you say save face? Because the implication is what as far as the president is concerned?
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): I think some may feel and the president may be one who feels that he’s losing his international power or acclaim if he doesn’t follow — he said there was a red line with chemical weapons and he feels incumbent to act. But the thing is just to act to save face is not a strategic objective.
He’s already pre-announced that if he does attack, he’s going to do it in a very limited fashion and he’s not going to be for regime change. To me this sort of sounds like we’re not going to win. He’s for stalemate.
When I’ve had private conversations with the administration, that’s what I hear. They’re not for victory for either side. They’re for equalizing the battle and having stalemate. But I see it in personal perspective. I have three sons. I don’t see sending one of my sons to war or your son to war to fight for stalemate.
I think this should be a clear-cut strategic objective that helps the United States. And we should know that whoever wins the war, whoever we’re supporting, will be a friend of the United States. I’m not certain that either side or any of the multiple sides of this war will ultimately be a friend to the United States.
BLITZER: You know, you have disagreements among some of your Republican colleagues, Republican Senator Bob Corker, for example, a key member of the Foreign Relations Committee. He said after being briefed by the administration, he says he now supports what he calls surgical proportional military strikes. So why is he wrong and you’re right?
PAUL: Well, I would ask the question, what is the strategic objective? Is it simply to say shame on you for launching and using chemical weapons? I would like to know who used the chemical weapons. In all likelihood it probably was the Syrian government. But it really isn’t to their advantage. It’s actually more to the advantage of the rebels to have launched this attack because the whole world now is uniting against Assad.
I would want to know, though, would the surgical strikes that are favored, would they somehow eliminate chemical weapons and stop him from using these again? If it’s not regime change, it may well incite the Russians to become more involved, the Iranians to become more involved. It may well incite gas attacks on Tel Aviv or Israel.
What happens then? Will Israel feel restrained this time the way they did in the Gulf War? Or will Israel respond in not just a proportional fashion but an overwhelming fashion to now obliterate as much of Iran’s military capacity if Iran gets involved? There’s a lot of unknowns about this.
And, you know, Eisenhower said that when the violence begins, you can throw out all your plans. But you certainly have to think about before you begin offensive actions what the possible ramifications are if this spins out of control.
Rand Paul: Obama For "Equalizing The Battle And Having A Stalemate" In Syria
No comments:
Post a Comment