BUSH: I would say a no-fly zone, creating safe zones in Syria, directly arming the Kurds in Iraq, reengaging both politically and militarily with the Sunnis - the Sunni tribal leaders who were effective partners in the creation of the surge. Have our troops be embedded with the Iraqi military. But, basically, all of this needs to be a strategy, not just one-off kind of incremental decisions being made by this president who wants to run out the clock. The strategy ought to be, how do we destroy ISIS and how do we create stability in the aftermath? And, right now, we have neither.
BUSH: I think it is wrong. I think that had we kept a small force in Iraq, we wouldn't have the mess that we have right now.
Q: You want troops to go in, but then everybody agrees there need to be some kind of stability afterwards. If 10,000 was a good sustaining force in Iraq after all the activities, but this is a totally new adventure, it would seem that upwards of 10,000 troops would be necessary for the kind of engagement you're talking about.
BUSH: If I'm commander in chief, my first order is, give me options, and if the military says that we need a fighting force of X- thousand, and this is the best way to destroy ISIS, then I would take that under advisement for sure.
KASICH: No, I'm not talking about an occupying force, I'm talking about a coalition that looks awfully like the coalition we had in the first Gulf War. It would involve our friends in the Middle East who want to contribute, also to our NATO allies, because we're not going to solve this problem with ISIS by just sitting back and delaying or dithering, which is what we've done.
GRAHAM: They better be, because if we don't destroy ISIL in Syria, which is their headquarters, we're going to get attacked at home. The entire region wants Assad gone, so there's an opportunity here with some American leadership to do two things, which is to destroy ISIL before we get hit at home and also to push Assad out and not give yet another Arab capital to Damascus.
Q: Robert Kagan wrote that the kind of operation that you are recommending could require 40,000 - 50,000 troops.
GRAHAM: I think it will require more than that, but the good news,10% of the force will come from Western powers. The force that we're talking about will come from regional armies from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey. They have regional armies. They would go into the fight if you put Assad on the table. They will pay for this war.
GRAHAM: I haven't been told that by anybody. The holding force would be the region. We're talking about region coming together with a Western component, 90 percent them, 10 percent us. The holding will be done by Sunni Arab states. We will turn to Assad and say, you must go. Russia and Iran will be on the outside looking in to an entire regional army, including Turkey, with Western elements. They will fold like a cheap suit.
HUCKABEE: After the attack in Mali, there were numerous reports that the gunmen were going around and saying, can you quote a verse from the Koran? If they said yes, they were allowed to go free. If they couldn't, they were shot. And so the point was is that, while the president has said we need to disarm law-abiding people, it was just a reminder that we are at war with radical Islam. It's not that we are at war with all Islam, but we are at war with those who believe that the purpose they have on earth is to declare a worldwide caliphate to kill all the infidels, which would mean everyone, including other Muslims, who don't agree to their harsh, intense, anti-woman, anti-human being approach to life and who want to take us back to the seventh century.
CHRISTIE: ISIS doesn't seem to be concerned about civilian casualties. We need to get real about this; we need to bring our allies together and revise rules of engagement to make sure that what we're doing is taking on ISIS in a significant, direct way that will be effective. So, this administration has no credibility in giving us any type of assessment of how this is going. We have the attacks in Mali now. Obama said al Qaeda was on the run. Obviously, that's wrong as well.
PAUL: I think the first thing we have to do is learn from our history. In the past several decades, if there's one true thing in the Middle East, it's that when we've toppled secular dictators, we've gotten chaos and the rise of radical Islam. So if we want a long lasting victory and peace, the boots on the ground are going to have to be Arab, and you're going to have to have Sunni Muslims defeating Sunni Muslims because even the Shiite Muslims can't occupy these Sunni cities. ISIS is essentially surrounded, but what we have to do is, we do need a ceasefire in Syria, and probably Russia's going to be part of that solution if we're willing to talk with them, but we also need to engage Turkey on one side. We need to engage the Kurds on one side.
BUSH: I think the president should convene the North American Council to discuss that. And I do think that it's worthy of consideration, for sure. If that's what the French want, as our longest and strongest and most loyal ally over our entire history, we should certainly consider it. Our hearts go out to the people of Paris and to France. This is the second time they have had an atrocious act of terror in their country. We need to show complete solidarity with them.
BUSH: No, I think we need to do both. We should declare war and harness all of the power that the United States can bring to bear both diplomatic and military, of course, to be able to take out ISIS. We need to declare a no-fly zone over Syria. Directly arm the Peshmerga forces in Iraq. Build up the Syrian Free Army. Re-engage with the Sunni tribal leaders. Embed with the Iraqi military. Be able to create safe zones in Syria. Garner the support of our European allies and the traditional Arab states. This a threat to Western civilization and we should consider it that way.
BUSH: You take it to them in Syria & Iraq. You destroy ISIS. And then you build a coalition to replace this radical Islamic terrorist threat to our country & to Europe & to the region with something that is more peace loving. We have to be engaged. This is not something you can contain. Each day that ISIS exists, it gains new energy and more recruits around the world.
BUSH: I tell the American public that a caliphate the size of Indiana garners strength each and every day if it's not taken out. 30,000 to 40,000 battle-tested soldiers that are organized to destroy our way of life. We have to be in this fight. There is no other option. And this threat can be contained, but more importantly, it'll never die unless it's destroyed. The policy of containment isn't going to work.
GRAHAM: I would form a regional army made of Arabs and Turks; American forces would be part of that army. We'd go in on the ground in Syria. We'd pull the caliphate up by the roots and we would take back land held by ISIL and hold it until Syria repairs itself. That requires American boots on the ground in Syria and we need more American boots on the ground in Iraq if we're going to protect the American homeland.
Q: If the Arabs such as Jordan and the Saudis and the UAE, Egypt, the Turks are eager to get in this fight, where are they?
GRAHAM: They're eager to get in the fight, but they're not going to go destroy ISIL unless we take a side out, too. To get a regional force, you have to accomplish two goals, to go in to destroy ISIL, which is a threat to the region, and also take out Assad, who is a puppet of Iran. Without putting Assad on the table, you're not going to be able to rally the region.
GRAHAM: Here's what I would do. I would tell the Russians that you're not going to use military force to keep Assad in power. That disrupts the region. It gives Iran more power at a time when they should have less. And the Syrian people are not going to accept Assad as their leader. So I would tell the Russians, if you want to fight for Assad, that will be your choice, but what you will be doing is fighting the entire world. And let Russia make a decision. And here's what they would do, they would back out.
GRAHAM: Absolutely. Here's what I believe, without adjusting our strategy the worst is yet to come when it comes to ISIL, that the Obama strategy regarding destroying ISIL is not working and will not work. I hope the French will invoke Article V. They should. The world should be at war with ISIL.
RUBIO: I don't think any nation on Earth takes more pains in avoiding civilian casualties than the United States. The reality, unfortunately, is that many of these terrorist groups deliberately operate from the center of civilian areas, because they want there to be civilian casualties for propaganda use. We've seen that as well used by the enemies of Israel on repeated occasions. Obviously, we're going to take great pains to avoid civilian casualties, but at the end of the day, no one has killed more civilians and more innocents here than ISIS has. And although we'll take extraordinary steps to avoid civilian casualties, there is, of course, no guarantee, especially, given the fact, that you're operating against these individuals, who have no regard for human life.
RUBIO: This is clearly an act of war on one of our NATO allies and we should invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement and bring everyone together to put together a coalition to confront this challenge.
Q: The question is how--Senator Lindsey Graham, says put 10,000 troops on the ground.
RUBIO: I think it's premature to say the exact numbers. I think that we need to begin to work more closely with the Sunni tribes in Iraq who do not want to work under the thumb of the central government in Iraq as well as the Kurds. The only way to ultimately defeat ISIS is for them to be defeated ideologically and militarily, by Sunnis themselves. But we are going to have to increase special operations attacks, targeting ISIS leadership and revealing that they are not invincible.
"We have not led, and when you don't lead, you create doubt in the minds of our friends, and also, it encourages our enemies," he said. He said he'd support a larger US military presence in the region. "The time has come to destroy ISIS as part of a coalition," Kasich said. "And if that means that US boots have to be on the ground, so be it," he said. "Because to allow this to linger, to put this off, to think that somehow this is going to go away is naive at best."
Kasich said joining Russia in the fight against ISIS doesn't mean the US should set aside fights with Moscow over its incursion in Ukraine and its intervention in favor of Syrian leader.
FIORINA: Well, first of all, it's recognition that you cannot have a successful bombing campaign without people on the ground telling you where to place the bomb. So, he's sort of come to reality. On the other hand, it's too little too late. I think this is a reflection of the reality, that when America does not act, when we do not lead as we have not the last three years under this president, our options become very constrained and the situation becomes more dangerous.I'm glad he did this, but we still do not have a strategy in Syria. We do not have a strategy to deal with ISIS.
FIORINA: Well, you know, the president has said he doesn't believe in no-fly zones, but no fly zones are very effective. They have been effective in the past and we need to establish one. We need to make it crystal clear to Vladimir Putin that our jets will fly when and where they want, that our troops cannot be threatened in any way by Russia. And it is why, as president of the United States, in addition to having a strategy in Syria and for ISIS, I would also be rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, right under Vladimir Putin's nose, rebuilding the missile defence program in Poland, so he must see strength and resolve from the United States of America.
GRAHAM: Here's what I've said, I intend to destroy ISIL. They want three things: they want to purify the Islamic faith and take it back to the 1100s, they want to destroy the state of Israel the attack infidels like us. President Obama said he will degrade and destroy ISIL. Sending 50 American Special Forces into Syria shows that Obama is not all in, it is a sign of weakness to ISIL. And to our allies, sending 50 troops means that we're not committed to destroying ISIL. And if we're not committed to destroying ISIL, they will attack us here. These 50 American special operators are going into a very bad spot with no chance of winning and at the end of the day, this will not destroy ISIL.
Kasich said the zones would provide refuge for Syrians fleeing the 4-year-old civil war that has killed a quarter million people and displaced an estimated 4 million. He suggested regional assistance from Turkey, Jordan and the Kurds and said the administration should encourage European allies to help enforce any no-fly zones. "A no-fly zone can be very, very effective if it's enforced," he said.
CARSON: I would use every resource available to us, which includes financial resources, covert operations, Special Forces, and ground troops if necessary. Because it's unlikely that a coalition will form behind nothing.
In terms of going into Syria, I think we need to push them out of Iraq, which is the largest part of the caliphate ISIS has established. We also can't let them continue to control Anbar, one of the largest energy fields. I would be in favor of pushing them up into Syria. There's a very complex situation in Syria. You have the Russians coming in there now and establishing themselves. You have China starting to do the same. You want to be very, very careful before you jump into the middle of that situation.
Q: So you're one of those that says, "Let Assad and ISIS fight it out amongst themselves, and then clean up the mess later?"
CARSON: That is certainly something to consider.
A: Yes there is.I think they (Senate Republicans) ought to go to the nuclear option in the United States Senate, that being that they should declare this a big constitutional issue and whether this agreement is put into effect or not, it ought to be decided by 51 votes, not by 60 votes or some filibuster. When it comes to this treaty, one which I so strongly oppose, I think the Republicans in the senate ought to say that we are not going to permit this to be blocked because of a filibuster.
SANDERS: No. I voted also for the war in Afghanistan, because I believed that Osama bin Laden needed to be captured, needed to be brought to trial.
Q: Yes, sir, I apologize for that, yes, you did.
SANDERS: But I am very concerned about a lot of the war talk that I'm hearing from my Republican colleagues, who apparently have forgotten the cost of war and the errors made in Afghanistan and Iraq. And what I believe, very much, is that the most powerful military on Earth, the United States of America, that our government should do everything that we can to resolve international conflict in a way that does not require war.
KASICH: I think we absolutely have to spend more on defense. It's one of the essential purposes of the federal government. But I have served on defense for 18 years and being able to witness the waste, the duplication, the red tape, the slowdown, we don't want to spend money there that goes in the bureaucracy and delay that could go into building a stronger defense. There's no inconsistency there: reform the Pentagon, strengthen the military. That's why I call myself the cheap hawk.
A: America has permanently settled some 70,000 refugees, many of which are from Syria. Throughout the last several years, we put some $4 billion into humanitarian relief to help with the Syrian crisis. America is leading but at some point, you can't just look at the symptoms. You've got to address the problem and the problem is squarely with ISIS and it's with Assad.[President Obama] is not allowing our military personnel to do what they're trained to do, if we would just lift the political restrictions, empower the over 3,000 troops that are there to do what they're trained to do to help the Kurd and the Sunni allies reclaim the territory taken by ISIS.
I think the Jordanians, the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Kurds and the Egyptians are all fighting ISIS, as we speak, on the ground. They know this is their fight. Yes, they need leadership, resolve support and material from us. We haven't provided any of it. And if we did, it will make a big difference.
A: Well, we should have had a base left in Iraq, for sure.
Q: But do you think that President George W. Bush, who launched the attack initially on Iraq, bears some responsibility for ISIS now?
A: I would have never committed ourselves to Iraq. And, as you can see, ultimately, it's going to end up being divided into three parts. I think the Kurds are great allies of ours. And we have got to very conscious of some of the things that they need and balance that off against the Turks, because that's become an issue over there. But all the religions of the world ought to stand up and say, "you blow up innocent men, women, and children, and you think you're going to paradise, there's something wrong with you, you're nuts, and if we catch you, we're going to throw you into prison, maybe for the rest of your life."
A: Let's talk the facts of the deal. We shouldn't be getting the hyperbole. The fact that we have to wait 24 days to inspect a site if the Iranians object is outrageous. That would be like me getting a search warrant, coming to somebody's house who I think is committing a crime and saying, here, I have got a search warrant, I will be back in 24 days to search.
Q: Well, if it was a radioactive crime, the inspectors say that they would be able to discern whether or not there was radioactive material there 24 days later.
A: The president promised any time anywhere. And you cannot tell me that, in 24 days, the Iranians cannot move the elements of cheating from one area to another.
A: I know the cost of war. I know I've seen it on the face of these young warriors and on their families. And before we ever send our young men and women into combat, we need to use every tool that we have.
Q: Do you think we've exhausted every measure possible before doing that [in Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS]?
A: I don't have all the intelligence. I would suggest we need a coalition of those Gulf States, of Saudi, of Jordan, of the Egyptians, the Turks, the Israelis--we cannot affect ISIS without having personnel on the ground in a direct combat role
A: The sanctions are already in place. And they would be reinstated. And that's what I would do as president. You don't need to have a Cabinet fully formed to do that. We will not use the national security waiver to hold back US sanctions against Iran, especially not as a result of this flawed deal that he's pursuing. I think that the sanctions were actually forcing Iran to the table. I think we should have asked for a lot more. It also requires us to help Iran technically, economically, develop themselves as a country and become a stronger regional power. That undermines our relationships with our Arab allies in the region and, of course, the state of Israel. I think it almost guarantees that there will now be an arms race in the Middle East.
WEBB: Well, we go through these cycles whenever we have extended ground commitments. We've done it three or four times in my adult life. I have a great deal of confidence, particularly in Joe Dunford, who's now going to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I don't think that the military leadership would be backing anything that they don't believe can work.
Q: So do you support it?
WEBB: No, I agree with the notion that ground forces are reduced when our extended ground commitments go down. But I don't know the numbers. I'd have to take a look and see where they are.
WEBB: The long term solution to the ISIS problem is going to have to come from the Sunni leadership in the region. In the interim period, we need to define specifically what our national security interests are and how we can bring them about. I don't think you're going to get there with us training these opposition forces in that way. It didn't work very well a few years ago before IS showed up. But in terms of our national security interests, I think you're seeing some impact.
A: The only way you're going to beat them is that. You know why they're rich? Because they have the oil.
Q: But I don't think the government of Iraq would want us to bomb their oil fields.
A: There is no government in Iraq. The so-called government in Iraq went to Iran to meet with Iran. Iran is going to take over Iraq. That's as simple as that. I don't care about the government of Iraq. They're totally corrupt. Who cares?
We spent $2 trillion in Iraq, $2 trillion. We lost thousands of lives, thousands in Iraq. We have wounded soldiers all over the place, thousands and thousands of wounded soldiers. And we have nothing. We can't even go there. We have nothing. And every time we give Iraq equipment, the first time a bullet goes off in the air, they leave it.
Last week, I read 2,300 Humvees--these are big vehicles--were left behind for the enemy. 2,300 sophisticated vehicles, they ran, and the enemy took them.
Rick Perry continued to highlight his executive experience in his criticism of the president's ISIS policy. "Positive rhetoric alone does not solve problems, action does," he said in a statement. "If I were Commander-in-Chief, it would not take nine months to work with our military leaders to develop a complete strategy to destroy ISIS and protect American security interests and values."
One of Perry's talking points has been his record of decisive action rather than promises and speeches. In his campaign launch on June 4, he advocated for a tougher approach to Russia and Iran, declaring, "This will be a 'show-me, don't tell me' election, where voters will look past the rhetoric to the real record."
Scott Walker seized the opportunity to attack Obama. He emphasized that American troops should play a larger role in the fight against the Islamic State terror group and that the president should reach out more to Kurds and Sunnis for cooperation. "For political reasons, President Obama isn't willing to expand the role of American troops," said the Wisconsin governor in a statement posted on the website of his Our American Revival PAC. "Politics should never dictate what needs to be done to ensure our safety and ensure victory when we deploy military power."
RUBIO: Well, not only would I have not been in favor of it, President Bush would not have been in favor of it. And he said so.
Q: So, it made sense to invade Iraq in 2003, but now you say it was a mistake?
RUBIO: That was not the same question. The question was whether it was a mistake. And my answer was it's not a mistake. I still say it was not a mistake, because the president was presented with intelligence that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it was governed by a man who had committed atrocities in the past with weapons of mass destruction.
There has to be the threat of military force. But my hope is really that negotiations continue. There are some in my party who say, "Oh, I don't want any negotiations." They're ready to be done with it. But once you're done with negotiations, the choices are war, or they get a weapon, and I don't want to have just those two binary choices.
A: Knowing what I know now, no. Reagan used to say trust and verify. In regard to Iran, it should be verify, verify, verify, without the trust, because I don't trust them.
Q: And you don't think the administration has done that or tried to do that?
A: I think they have fallen in love with this deal. I think a lot of it is about a legacy. I do not like this agreement, what I have read so far.
CHAFEE: Well, I enjoyed working with Sen. Clinton. We overlapped for six years and we served on the environment and public works committee together. But that vote for the Iraq war, that was a moment in time where the Vietnam era had ended, the Berlin wall come down. There was lasting peace ahead of us if we made good decisions particularly after September 11th when people were angry and they were scared. And that was just a moment in time where the premise for going into Iraq was so false that there were weapons of mass destruction--she didn't do her homework and we live with the ramifications today. And so you may say that's 12 years ago, but if you show lack of judgment, lack of doing your homework then, what can we expect in the future?
PAUL: Occasionally, I can be partisan, but, on this, I don't think I would jump to the conclusion that, all of a sudden, the ayatollah of Iran is telling the truth, and my government is lying to us. Now, the biggest problem we have right now is that every time there is a hint of an agreement, the Iranian foreign minister tweets out in English that the agreement doesn't mean what our government says it means. So I keep an open mind as to who is telling the truth. It is very, very damaging to the American public, and to the details of this agreement, if we can't trust the sincerity or the credibility of the Iranian government
Q: So, at this point, you have an open mind about this?
PAUL: Yes. I want peace. I want negotiations. I don't want another war. But I also want a good agreement.
There are two million Christians in Syria. And you know what? If you asked them who would they choose, they would all choose Assad over ISIS, because they see the barbarity of perhaps both. But they see the utter depravity and barbarity of ISIS. And so bombing Assad probably isn't a good policy.
Well, that's all they'll let me attach it to. But I forced them to debate. And I think that's one of the things to me that has been most exciting about being in the Senate, is I could be at home saying, "Congress should declare war," and, "Why won't Congress get involved?"
But now, I'm actually there. And I can say, "You know what? I'll make them vote on this. And they will have to discuss war." And they did. We had a great discussion. It didn't come to a resolution, but I'm still pushing to say, "Look, you should not be at war." And in fact, I've said the president, if he wanted to be a great leader last August should have come before a joint session of Congress and laid out the plan.
Paul's support for the Kurds includes giving them more weapons, but he doesn't feel the same about Syrian rebels for reasons that include fear the arms would land in the hands of extremists. He also insists the Obama administration was wrong to intervene in Libya.
O`MALLEY: The greatest danger that we face right now on a consistent basis in terms of manmade threats is nuclear Iran and related to that, extremist violence. I don't think you can separate the two. I think they go together. We have to confront both of these issues, and it starts with supporting the president in achieving that negotiated settlement.
Then, at last, a slight stroke of good luck. Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized the letter--and maybe, implicitly, Jindal--on Twitter. "No one considering running for commander-in-chief should be signing on," she wrote.
Jindal seized the moment. "@HillaryClinton No one who allows Iran to become a nuclear power should consider running," he tweeted back. He was in the conversation. "News Alert: Bobby Jindal and Hillary Clinton tussle on Twitter," Jindal's political advisers wrote in a news release.
To Jindal's advisers, there is a method in all this activity: Jindal is not searching for a political identity. He is showing his range.
CARSON: Well, first of all, recognize that ISIS and some of the other radical Islamic terrorist groups -and let's not forget about the Shia which are based in Iran-- are responsible for a lot of terrorism. They would like to destroy us and our way of life. We have a couple of options. We can sit back and say, "Nah, they're not that big a deal," or we can recognize that the longer we allow them to grow, to spread, to root, get their roots well established, the more difficult it will be to eradicate them later. So what I mean is we have to eradicate them now. We have to use every means possible to do that. And we certainly don't want to have people who know very little about military strategy micromanaging a very competent military that we have.
HUCKABEE: Well, first of all, we should have been long ago arming the Kurds. They're the most reliable force that we have in the Middle East, especially in the northern part of Iraq, that is willing and ready to fight ISIS and to do it without American blood being spilled. We have not kept our promise to the Kurds. The second thing we should do is make sure that, wherever there's an ISIS target, that we bomb the daylights out of it. We make it unpopular to join ISIS, because we need to let them know, they basically sign on to a death sentence if they want to join this hideous, savage, uncivilized group of people who think it's OK to burn people alive and cut their heads off, and not only to do it, but I think what is most despicable is that they are proud of it: They videotape it. They show it to the world. They want us to see what they do. And that makes it even more horrifying.
HUCKABEE: We don't leave anything off the table. But if they're going to be boots, they have to be more than just U.S. boots. There's got to be some boots that from come from the Saudis, the Jordanians and others.
WALKER: I believe we should not take any action off the table. I don't want to run into the war. But I don't want any of [our soldiers] to have died in vain. I think when we look at that and say there's radical Islamic terrorism, it's like a virus, we needed to be prepared to do what it takes to make sure it doesn't spread.
Q: You say you wouldn't take anything off the table, but that doesn't quite answer my question. Would you commit US ground forces?
WALKER: For me to do something like that would require a number of things. Listening to the chain of command, particularly the Joint Chiefs, your national security advisers and others, as to what's necessary and listening to the people who are actually out in the field is the best way to do that. But then also bring together a coalition. Certainly, reaffirming our major asset, our major ally in the region, that being Israel, but also our other allies around the world.
The former Florida governor called non-state terrorist groups such as the Islamic State "perhaps the greatest security threat that we now face for our own homeland."
He added, "Taking them out is the strategy."
Over the course of his brother's presidency, Bush frequently expressed support for the war. As the Iraq conflict began in 2003, he [said of his brother] "in his heart, I know he is doing what he thinks is right, and I concur with him." He visited Iraq with other Republican governors in April 2006 to visit US troops. Nearing the 10th anniversary of the start of the war, Bush said that "history will be kind to my brother, the further out you get from this and the more people compare his tenure to what's going on now."
CRUZ: We have boots on the ground already with the Kurds. But our government is not providing military weapons effectively to the Kurds. Instead, they're shuttling it all to Baghdad, and Baghdad is very slow in getting it to the Kurds.
Q: But if that's not enough, would you be willing to send American ground troops into that battle?
CRUZ: Look, we need to accomplish the mission and the mission should be defeating ISIS before they succeed in carrying out more horrific acts of terror. If need be, we should go that step. The problem is, right now, the Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy has been consistently wrong on ISIS. Our photo-op foreign policy, where we drop a bomb here or a missile there. We need a focused, direct military objective of taking out and destroying ISIS.
CRUZ: She said she did not believe there was any prospect for Ukraine to be successful in defending itself against Russian aggression. I think that's mistaken. What [Obama and Merkel are] doing with regard to Ukraine and with regard to Russia makes no sense, and it isn't working. It is long past time for us to step forward and provide defensive weapons, so that the men and women of Ukraine can defend their nation. They are our allies. We committed ourselves to standing with Ukraine to defend their territorial integrity.
Q: Should the US arm the Ukraine over the objections of the Germans?
CRUZ: What we're seeing is, when America doesn't lead, Europe can't be expected to step into the breach. What is missing from this is the president of the US. I'm part of a large bipartisan congressional delegation that is united on the need for us to provide defensive arms to Ukraine.
CRUZ: We met today with the president of Kurdistan. The Kurds on the ground are fantastic fighters. The Peshmerga have been our allies. And they're actually fighting every day to stop ISIS. Now, what makes no sense whatsoever is, the Obama administration is refusing to directly arm the Kurds. We need to arm the Kurds now because they are our boots on the ground. I don't believe it is necessary to put American boots on the ground if we are arming the Peshmerga. The Peshmerga on the ground, combined with overwhelming American airpower, can take out ISIS.
Q: So some in the Pentagon who apparently are considering about 10,000 U.S. troops on the ground, that would be a bad move?
CRUZ: In my view, American boots on the ground should always be the last step, and we need to exercise other steps before that. We have the availability of overwhelming airpower, and we have boots on the ground that are ready and eager to fight.
Paul said Hillary Clinton was to blame for what he described as foreign-policy failures: she was a proponent of interventions during popular uprisings against the ruling regimes in Libya and Syria. "Hillary's war in Libya has been an utter disaster," Paul said. "There are now jihadists roaming all across Libya. It's a jihadist wonderland."
The US was part of an international coalition to oust Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from power in 2011. "Gadhafi was a secular dictator," Paul said. "Not the kind of guy that we want to have representing us in country, but he was secular. He didn't like radical Islam, and he kept them down because they were a threat to him. What happened when we toppled the secular dictator? Chaos. More radical Islam."
In Syria, Paul said that Islamic State--a militant group operating in Syria and Iraq that is also known as ISIS--was essentially created by the US aid program under the Obama administration. "I think we have to do something about ISIS," he said. "But, you know why we're doing something and why we have to be there again? Because of a failed foreign policy that got us involved in a Syrian Civil War. By supporting the Islamic rebels, ISIS grew stronger and stronger. And now we have to go back."
WALKER: Well, I'd go back to the red line [that Obama defined against use of chemical weapons].
Q: Let's not go back. Let's go forward. What is your big, bold idea in Syria?
WALKER: I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it's not a matter of IF they attempt an attack on American soil, but it's WHEN. We need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we're willing to take appropriate action. I think it should be surgical.
Q: You don't think 2,000 air strikes is taking it to ISIS in Syria and Iraq?
WALKER: I think we need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world.
WALKER: I think we need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world.
Q: I don't know what "aggressive" strategy means.
WALKER: I think anywhere and everywhere, we have to go beyond just aggressive air strikes. We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that's what it takes, because I think--
Q: Boots on the ground in Syria? U.S. boots on the ground in Syria?
WALKER: I don't think that is an immediate plan, but I think anywhere in the world--
Q: But you would not rule that out?
WALKER: I wouldn't rule anything out. I think when you have the lives of Americans at stake and our freedom loving allies anywhere in the world, we have to be prepared to do things that don't allow those measures, those attacks, those abuses to come to our shores.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Well, once you liberate a country like Iraq, and you don't have a follow-up force, they fill in the gaps. Syria is a terror state. The civil war in Syria basically broke the country apart. And the only thing I can say is you have to deny the enemy safe haven. Returning from Iraq prematurely was a mistake. Not supporting the Free Syrian Army three or four years ago was a mistake. You've got to stay after these guys.
Q: What do you tell the country that's war-weary?
GRAHAM: You need to fight them over there or they're coming back here. It's better to partner than it is to go it alone. You've got to show the ability to stay with it. You try to get partners. The Free Syrian Army would be a good partner.
GRAHAM: The answer now is to deny ISIL the safe haven they enjoy in Syria and Iraq because it is a platform to strike the United States. There are more [more terror attacks like in] Paris coming until you disrupt this network. There are more terrorist organizations with more safe havens, with more capability to hit the homeland than before 9/11. The answer is to form a regional coalition, America has to be part of it, go in on the ground, and get these guys out of Syria. The current strategy is failing. Everybody has told us on this trip that if you don't have a no-fly zone, the people we're training, the Free Syrian Army that we're training is going to go back into Syria and get slaughtered by Assad. There's no way to be successful on the ground without neutralizing Assad's air advantage. And so we need a no-fly zone desperately.
GRAHAM: I think we're trying to tell the Iranians that we would like a political negotiation, a diplomatic solution, but please understand in Iran that the Congress is intent on re-apply sanctions, if you walk away from the negotiating table, and if you cheat, I don't think that's a disruptive message. All we're telling the Iranians, "If you walk away from these negotiations, sanctions will be reapplied. If you cheat, they will be reimposed." But let me just say this. I'm willing to forgo sanctions if the president will take any deal he negotiates and brings it to Congress for our approval.
| |||
| 2020 Presidential contenders on War & Peace: | |||
|
Democrats running for President:
Sen.Michael Bennet (D-CO) V.P.Joe Biden (D-DE) Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I-NYC) Gov.Steve Bullock (D-MT) Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-IN) Sen.Cory Booker (D-NJ) Secy.Julian Castro (D-TX) Gov.Lincoln Chafee (L-RI) Rep.John Delaney (D-MD) Rep.Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Sen.Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Gov.Deval Patrick (D-MA) Sen.Bernie Sanders (I-VT) CEO Tom Steyer (D-CA) Sen.Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) Marianne Williamson (D-CA) CEO Andrew Yang (D-NY) 2020 Third Party Candidates: Rep.Justin Amash (L-MI) CEO Don Blankenship (C-WV) Gov.Lincoln Chafee (L-RI) Howie Hawkins (G-NY) Gov.Jesse Ventura (I-MN) |
Republicans running for President:
V.P.Mike Pence(R-IN) Pres.Donald Trump(R-NY) Rep.Joe Walsh (R-IL) Gov.Bill Weld(R-MA & L-NY) 2020 Withdrawn Democratic Candidates: Sen.Stacey Abrams (D-GA) Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-NYC) Sen.Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) Sen.Mike Gravel (D-AK) Sen.Kamala Harris (D-CA) Gov.John Hickenlooper (D-CO) Gov.Jay Inslee (D-WA) Mayor Wayne Messam (D-FL) Rep.Seth Moulton (D-MA) Rep.Beto O`Rourke (D-TX) Rep.Tim Ryan (D-CA) Adm.Joe Sestak (D-PA) Rep.Eric Swalwell (D-CA) | ||
|
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||