|
|
Herman Cain on War & PeaceRepublican Businessman & Talk-Show Host |
CAIN: I would first make sure that they had a credible plan for success, clarity of mission and clarity of success. Remember, when you talk about attacking Iran, it is a very mountainous region. The latest reports say that there may be 40 different locations, and I would want to make sure that we had a good idea from intelligence sources where these are located. And if Israel had a credible plan that it appeared as if they could succeed, I would support Israel, yes. And in some instances, depending upon how strong the plan is, we would join with Israel for that, if it was clear what the mission was and it was clear what the definition of victory was.
PAUL: I wouldn't do that, because I don't expect it to happen. A Mossad leader said it would be the stupidest thing to do in the world. They're not about to do this.
Cain: The first thing that I would do is to assist the opposition movement in Iran, that's trying to overthrow the regime. Our enemies are not the people of Iran, it's the regime. And a regime change is what they are trying to achieve. Secondly, we need to put economic pressure on Iran, and work to increase sanctions on Iran. The only we can stop them is through economic means.
Q: In assisting the opposition, would you entertain military assistance?
Cain: I would not entertain military opposition. I'm talking about to help the opposition movement within the country. And then there's one other thing that we could do. We could deploy our ballistic missile defense, & capable war ships strategically in that part of the world. We have the biggest fleet of those warships in the world. And we could use them strategically in the event that they were able to fire a ballistic missile.
Cain: I've said many times before that US intervention in Libya is inappropriate and wrong. The US does not belong in this war.
Gingrich: Not with conventional forces.
Cain: Pres. Obama did not make it clear what our mission was in Libya, what the American interests were or what victory looks like. We cannot risk our treasury or national treasures (brave men & women in uniform) without knowing those answers.
There is obviously a lot of classified information to which I do not have access. There are dozens of experts and military leaders I would need advice from before I could make an informed decision about a real clear plan for the USA's involvement in Afghanistan. Similarly, a real clear strategy for every country with which we have relationships would be developed, regardless of whether or not we are involved in a military conflict.
I want to be out of Afghanistan and all war-torn countries as much as the next person. But I am not going to propose a half-baked plan based on half the information I would need to make the right decision, just to pretend I know everything.
A: Neither, for the following reason. We should start with: What's the objective? Second: How does it relate to the interests of the USA? Third: is there a plan for victory, and how do we you define that? In both of those instances, those things are not clear. We need a real, clear national security strategy with every nation, friend or foe. We obviously didn't have that because you can see in those two examples, inconsistencies in the President's decisions and in his actions. Even in Libya, whe the civil strife first started, he was supporting the [rebel] leader. Then he changed; so that meant that we didn't have a clear strategy or a very clear definition what we were going to do if the situation escalated, which is exactly what it has done.