Libertarian Party nominee for Vice President; former Republican Massachusetts Governor
Presumption of non-intervention on foreign soil
In terms of relations with other countries, Gary and I are inclined towards a presumption of non-intervention restraint where U. S. boots on the ground or blood on foreign soil is concerned. I think we've all seen in recent years that actions to induce
regime change can have unseen costs and they're moral as well as economic, and rippling and unintended consequences, both the Middle East and North Africa are examples.
At the same time, we believe strongly that an invincible defense is a bedrock responsibility of the U. S. government which requires that America maintain and demonstrate the most powerful military in the world including air supremacy and
naval supremacy. Notably, we are the only candidates on the ballot this year who believe in free international trade in goods and services, again, guided by the rule of law.
Don't intervene abroad when people are mean to each other
I was a little surprised this week to see 51 State Department diplomats say we want to bomb to force regime change in Syria. "Regime change?" I say to myself, "that sounds familiar." It takes a lot of boots on the ground to effectuate regime change,
if you want to make sure it sticks. [So we are] a pair of skeptics when people say we should intervene on the ground because these people are being mean to each other and we can't stand that. That's not going to sell as a matter of first impressions.
Source: CNN Libertarian Town Hall: joint interview of Johnson & Weld
, Jun 22, 2016
