Pete Buttigieg on War & Peace Democratic Presidential Challenger; IN Mayor

No Iranian nukes, via reinstating joint nuclear deal

BUTTIGIEG: Ensuring that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons will, of course, be a priority, because it's such an important part of keeping America safe. But unfortunately, President Trump has made it much harder for the next president to achieve that goal. By gutting the Iran nuclear deal--one that, by the way, the Trump administration itself admitted was working, certified that it was preventing progress toward a nuclear Iran--by gutting that, they have made the region more dangerous & set off the chain of events that we are now dealing with as it escalates even closer to the brink of outright war. We've got to work with our partners. The Iran nuclear deal, the technical term for it was the JCPOA. That first letter "J" stood for "Joint." We can't do this alone, even less so now after everything that has happened.

If troops go to war, will include 3-year sunset clause

Would use force, but need to think of the consequences

We have betrayed our allies & values by exiting Syria

Mayor Buttigieg: Well, respectfully, Congresswoman, I think that is dead wrong. The slaughter going on in Syria is not a consequence of American presence, it's a consequence of a withdrawal and a betrayal, by this President, of American allies and American values. Look, I didn't think we should've gone to Iraq in the first place, I think we need to get out of Afghanistan, but it's also the case that a small number of specialized special operations forces and intelligence capabilities were the only thing that stood between that part of Syria and what we're seeing now, which is the beginning of a genocide, and the resurgence of ISIS.

Syrian withdrawal undermines our soldiers' honor

Mayor Pete BUTTIGIEG: Soldiers in the field are reporting that, for the first time, they feel ashamed of what their country has done.

Rep. Tulsi GABBARD: What you're saying is that you would continue to support having US troops in Syria for an indefinite period of time to continue this regime change war?

BUTTIGIEG: You can put an end to endless war embracing Trump's policy as you're doing.

GABBARD: Will you end the regime change war is the question?

BUTTIGIEG: What we were doing in Syria was keeping our word. Part of what makes it possible for the United States to get people to put their lives on the line to back us up is the idea that we will back them up too. When I was deployed, not just the Afghan National Army Forces, but the janitors put their lives on the line just by working with US Forces. It is undermining the honor of

No open-ended commitment to ground troops in Afghanistan

BUTTIGIEG: I served under General Dunford, way under General Dunford, in Afghanistan. And today, September 12, 2019, means that today you could be 18 years old, old enough to serve, and had not been alive on 9/11. We have got to put an end to endless war. And the way we do it is see to it that that country will never again be used for an attack against our homeland, and that does not require an open-ended commitment of ground troops. Let me say something else, because if there's one thing we've learned from Afghanistan, it's that the best way not to be caught up in endless war is to avoid starting one in the first place.

Make sure we have right kind of settlement in Afghanistan

Rejoin Iran deal with 6 other countries

N. Korea: Step-by-step process for peace & denuclearization

Keep the troops deployed abroad

EIGHT CANDIDATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS: Michael Bennet; Joseph Biden, Jr.; Cory Booker; Peter Buttigieg; Amy Klobuchar; Seth Moulton; Tim Ryan; Eric Swalwell; Andrew Yang.

Other candidates have urged restraint, warning that allies in nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq still need American military support. Withdrawing all U.S. troops, they assert, could be a grave mistake and only make the situation worse.

Restore Iran deal; work with allies in Europe and the region

Deal with Iran; consult with intelligence

Never should have left Iran deal, will do something new

BUTTIGIEG: First of all, engage our allies. We are not alone. At least we shouldn't be acting alone. Another thing I would never have done is to get us out of the nuclear deal setting off a chain reaction that has destabilized the regional security framework and the politics of that area. We need to have a completely different approach. We're going to have to do something new. The point is that we never should have left it in the first place.

We've learned how hard it is to end a war

Never send troops without clear definition of their mission

We should never again send troops into conflict without a clear definition of their mission and an understanding of what will come after.

I believe we should use force when there is a clear and present threat to the US; when it's necessary to deter and defend against an attack on or imminent threat against the United States, our citizens at home or abroad, or our treaty allies; and when we act as part of a legitimate international coalition to prevent genocide or other atrocities. But when we must use force, we must also have an end game.

Small steps forward in North Korea; no "love letters"

Be more judicious when committing troops

Don't let Iraq war supporters plan Venezuela invasion

Bolton was an early supporter of the Iraq War and pushed for the initial invasion during his time, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as President George W. Bush's undersecretary of State for arms control and international security.

U.S. not the guarantor of peace in Afghanistan

Pull troops out of Afghanistan, but not Syria

Afghanistan war was "outsourced" to the few in uniform

We might have had, in those years, a more serious conversation about what each of us owes to the country in a time of conflict.

Not realistic to demand "with us or with the terrorists"

Democrats, unsure of themselves, were afraid to sound like an opposition at all, and many carefully avoided opposing the Iraq War for fear of looking unpatriotic. (Some, particularity Hillary Clinton, would come to regret this posturing.) Instead they tried to change the subject, emphasizing Social Security and Medicare, even though global security was the dominant issue of our moment--even in Indiana.

2002 Iraq War made no strategic sense, even if WMDs existed

The tough talk was rousing, but it made no strategic sense. Saddam was a notoriously sinister dictator whose top priority, as with all dictators, was his own survival. It followed that he viewed his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons (as most of us believed he had) as an insurance policy to keep him in power. He would only part with them voluntarily if it would benefit his personal security--an unlikely course for someone who did not trust America. But actually using them would almost certainly lead to his destruction, so he had every reason to sit on his weapons if he had them. The only scenario where he might use them would be if he had nothing to lose by doing so--and now by invading, we were poised to create that very situation.

He didn't have any WMDs--and so they were not there to be used against American troops.

2002: opposed Iraq War because believed WMDs would be used

Iraq fell quickly, and for a moment it seemed that the invasion was a vindication of American intervention abroad. Protesters like me looked foolish. Sure, the pretext for war was actually false, but who could quibble over that, as a brutal dictatorship was being turned into a model democracy at relatively little cost to America?

Then the suicide bombings began. We were not, as the administration had promised, "greeted as liberators." A well-functioning democracy did not emerge. And the ensuing chaos made it clear that the administration had not planned for the aftermath of the invasion, as Iraqi cities became a kill zone for our troops. We who were against the invasion had been wrong about the weapons, but right about the war. The administration had been wrong about both.