By Mike Warren

There is little doubt President George W. Bush's presidential legacy will be greatly defined by the Iraq War, both by its execution and its outcome. Much to the chagrin of Democrats, the Iraq War will also define the administration of whoever wins the election next fall, no matter what Clinton or Obama say about a "phased redeployment." For all of the president's missteps in Iraq, the situation has improved, and American soldiers are on the path to victory. The next president will have the responsibility of continuing the progress and ensuring Iraq is stable and secure.

Though it may not matter at this point, perhaps it is worth noting all of the Republican candidates for president supported the Iraq War except for Rep. Ron Paul. Paul (more of a libertarian activist than a sincere candidate) opposes increasing troop levels and says he would withdraw American troops from Iraq as soon as he enters office. He argues from a standpoint of non-interventionism, which places him in the illustrious league of isolationists that includes failed presidential candidates Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader.

Paul claims many of our nation's problems could be solved if we simply retreat from the geopolitical stage and return to a state of isolationism.
Back in the real world, however, the other relevant candidates (kudos to Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter for their valiant but meaningless effort) maintain Iraq is an integral front in the war against Islamism, the doctrine of radical jihad that threatens America with terrorism. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and John McCain all recognize and acknowledge the threat, even in the face of popular opposition. Being the least experienced in foreign affairs, Huckabee's rhetoric about diplomacy with other Middle East nations seems slightly naive, although the hard-hitting language about staying the course in Iraq rings true.

Romney, Giuliani, Thompson and McCain all openly support continuing the "surge" policy, which means staying in Iraq until victory is achieved and securing the region for the larger war. These four candidates all understand the threat of anti-American jihad is more than just a bumper sticker issue. McCain, who undoubtedly has the most foreign policy expertise with his two decades in the Senate, has been a faithful supporter of Bush's war policy. This might be a hindrance unless the success of the surge and General Petraeus continues to bring progress to Iraq, as McCain embodies the Republican Senate faithful to the war. Thompson also has actual foreign policy experience as a former senator, and he has not been afraid to express constructive criticism about the execution of the war thus far.

Romney and Giuliani, like Huckabee, have little to no foreign policy experience, yet their language about the importance of maintaining a strong military presence in the Middle East and making victory in Iraq a top priority is legitimate and meaningful. Any of the potential Republican nominees can give conservatives confidence that they will make sure America does not leave Iraq in defeat, no matter how much the Democrats wish for America to lose.

Submitted by yala on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 14:24.

Thanks Reeve, appreciate it

Thanks Reeve, appreciate it too!!

Submitted by warrenmr on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 19:12.

Thanks Reeve, appreciate it.

Submitted by Reeve Hamilton on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 14:52.

fixed

I fixed that lower case thing for you.

Submitted by warrenmr on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 13:08.

A response

First off, I should point out that the Hustler editors changed my meaning when they capitalized "libertarian." I used the lower case "l" to define his political philosophy, not his political party. I fully recognize that Ron Paul is a Republican, but there is no doubt that he is also a libertarian (small "l"!). Secondly, I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul. I think this primary process would have not been as purposeful if he had not been there to challenge Republicans on some important issues like immigration and spending. I disagree with him on the war, but that's my right as an American, I suppose. I could debate you on the merits of your argument against the war, but what would be the point? You and the other Ron Paul internet hounds troll the internet, responding with these long, rambling tomes that just clog up these news stories. You make some good points, but I didn't write this article solely to attack Ron Paul, so I really am not prepared to have a sufficient response to your onslaught. Do know this: Ron Paul's internet support is impressive, but it is really starting to get grating, at least to me. Ron Paul makes his points in the debates, but he isn't going to be president. He serves his purpose and that is that. I appreciate you reading this, check out www.vutorch.com for some good old fashioned conservative and libertarian news and commentary.

Submitted by BrooklynZoo on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 05:08.

Ron Paul

"Paul (more of a Libertarian activist than a sincere candidate) opposes increasing troop levels and says he would withdraw American troops from Iraq as soon as he enters office." First off, that makes no sense. Ron Paul is and has been a Republican for 30 years. In 1988, he saw that he had very little chance of winning the GOP primary and was convinced to run as a third-party candidate, the only time in his history when he has done so. The problem with the type of smear you're painting is that Dr. Paul is the only true "conservative" Republican on the stage. His policies are very much in line with the Founding Fathers, as well as "Mr. Republican" Robert Taft and "Mr. Conservative" Barry Goldwater. It's worth noting that Barry Goldwater, Jr. has endorsed Ron Paul for President. Paul is perhaps the most consistent member of Congress in that he strongly defends and only votes along the line of what the Constitution allows. Former Treasury Secretary William Simon called him, the “one exception to the Gang of 535.” Previous to his recent lapse of sanity in attacking Paul even John McCain once referred to him as, "...the most honest man in Congress." The other candidates on stage have either forgotten what it means to be conservative, never were conservative or are puppets dancing to the beat of a decidedly anti-American song. Those in the media that miss this fact are either blind or trying their best to ignore it for the sake of blind support or bought allegiance. The war in Iraq in its entirety was a lie; continuing to occupy that territory does little to serve our interests here at home and does everything to harm our soldiers and spend our tax dollars on more lies. We went somewhere we should not have went and did something we ought not to have done. Why should we continue endlessly? The "surge" has, for the moment, decreased violence to 2005 levels, for several reasons. Of course, increased troop numbers will allow for increased policing, something soldiers are not sent to war to do. As it stands, 2005 levels of 846 troops dead and 6000 wounded doesn't sound particularly like success. Even more telling is the fact that the violence has decreased the most in the regions that have essentially been ethnically cleansed, that troops have already pulled back from, such as the British forces did, or that have been taken over by regional warlords. So giving credit to something that is basically a sign of a larger failure toward our supposed goal of a free and democratic Iraq is not a good thing. The very people who say Iraq will be worse if we leave are the ones who predicted it would be a cakewalk on our way in. Why would I or anyone else trust people like Dick Cheney and his chickenhawks who received multiple deferments from service in actual wartime yet have no problem potentially igniting World War III by suggesting a preemptive attack on Iran next? This absurd "War on Terror" has done nothing to make Americans safer. NOTHING. We haven't proven anything, not to ourselves, not to the world, certainly not to the terrorists, whose opinion we should care about the least but who have gained the most from our foreign policy. There are lots of displaced Iraqis having lost family and friends to the "American oppressor" who will now be happy to join the militant Saudis- Saudia Arabia by the way being no closer to a democratic government than before and yet where did most of those 9/11 hijackers supposedly come from? Ever feel like you've been played? The facts all stand against the neoconservative ideology but they don't seem to let little things like "facts" get in the way of their rhetoric. Since this war has not benefited the United States in national safety or monetary gain, and Afghanistan is, well, back in the hands of the Taliban (good job Bush &co.!) ask yourself, who exactly has benefited from all this? If you can grasp even the tip of the answer, perhaps the scales may one day fall from your eyes. Maybe then you will see why Ron Paul fights on just hoping that America will hear and awaken from her slumber. Garrett Gebhardt

Submitted by MikeMaio on Fri, 12/14/2007 - 03:30.

"Paul (more of a Libertarian

"Paul (more of a Libertarian activist than a sincere candidate) opposes increasing troop levels and says he would withdraw American troops from Iraq as soon as he enters office. He argues from a standpoint of non-interventionism, which places him in the illustrious league of isolationists that includes failed presidential candidates Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. Paul claims many of our nation's problems could be solved if we simply retreat from the geopolitical stage and return to a state of isolationism." Uh-oh, I think I hear Ron Paul's troll patrol off in the distance. They will be here before the morrow...we have very little time.

Login or Register to leave comments.

WE HAVE ISSUES: Republican Candidates