|
Bobby Jindal on War & Peace
Republican Governor; previously Representative (LA-1)
|
|
|
No-fly zone in Syria, to support Syrian rebels
Q: You supported training Syrian rebels and that has been a complete failure. So what would work?JINDAL: If they had aggressively trained those rebels and the Kurds in the beginning, we'd be in a different place. You wouldn't have Putin and
Assad working with Hezbollah and Iran. We need to create a no-fly zone, working with the Turkish and other allies.
Q: ISIS doesn't have aircraft. So, what would that no-fly zone really accomplish?
JINDAL: It accomplishes a couple of things.
Number one, it helps to stabilize the region, so you don't have all these refugees flooding into Europe. Secondly, it gives us space for moderates, for Kurds and others, to group and to plan attacks against ISIS, against Assad.
Third, it keeps Russia from bombing our allies. We're here because this president drew a red line, didn't enforce it. We're here because this president has put political handcuffs on the military, won't let them go after ISIS and get the job done.
Source: ABC This Week 2015 interview by Martha Raddatz
, Oct 11, 2015
U.S. ground troops to wipe out ISIS
Q: Would you send in and how many troops approximately into Syria, U.S. troops?JINDAL: Well, I don't think you take any option off the table. If the military says we need ground troops to wipe out ISIS, as commander in chief,
you have got to be open to that option. These are radical Islamic terrorists, we can't negotiate with them. We have got to hunt them down and kill them.
Q: You don't think that's what they're doing now?
We've had thousands and thousands of airstrikes.
JINDAL: I don't think we have fought this war. No, I disagree.
I think if this president were serious, we could wipe them out. I think there are more things that we can be doing. I think our military could be much more effective.
Source: ABC This Week 2015 interview by Martha Raddatz
, Oct 11, 2015
Replace Assad; hunt down & destroy ISIS
Q: Senator Graham says that the United States has a moral obligation to these Syrian refugees. Do we?JINDAL: America's the most compassionate country in the entire world. That's the nature of the American people. Let us draw a direct line between this
Syrian refugee crisis and this president's failed foreign policy. Obama drew a red line in Syria and did not enforce it and now we're seeing millions of refugees potentially going into Europe. The answer is not to put a band-aid on this and allow even
more people to come into America. We've got a normal refugee process. Simply allowing more into our country doesn't solve this problem. The way to solve this problem is for us to be clear to our friends and allies that we're going to replace
Assad, we're going to hunt down and destroy ISIS; our friends don't trust us, our enemies don't fear and respect us.
Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary undercard debate on CNN
, Sep 16, 2015
ISIS are barbarians; hunt them down and kill them
We need to do whatever is necessary to hunt down and kill these radical Islamic terrorists but this president has helped--his policies have helped to contribute to this problem. He went to the Pentagon the same week they announced they were cutting back
the number of troops in the Army to say that we're not going to win this through guns, it's going to be a change of hearts and minds. These are barbarians. They are crucifying people alive, Christians and other Muslims.
Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary undercard debate on CNN
, Sep 16, 2015
Use nuclear option in Senate to overturn Iran nuclear deal
Now it takes a two-thirds vote to reject the Iran deal. Will the Senate Republicans--they still have time--are they willing to use the nuclear option, meaning get rid of the filibusters,
stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power? Now is the time for the Senate Republicans to stand up and fight.
Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary undercard debate on CNN
, Sep 16, 2015
Don't change hearts & minds; kill the terrorists
Q: August 8th marks one year since the strikes began against ISIS. A Marine Corps general says, "One year later, that fight is at a stalemate." How would your fight against ISIS be different?JINDAL: We've got a president who says, "we're going to
change hearts and minds." Well, you know what? Sometimes you win a war by killing murderous, evil terrorists. We're going to take the political handcuffs off the military. We will arm and train the Kurds. We will work with our Sunni allies.
They know we will be committed to victory. We had this failed red line with Assad and it discouraged folks that want to help us on the ground. Finally, we'll take off the political handcuffs. We'll go to the Congress. This president has gone to
Congress and said "give me a three-year deadline, give me a ban on ground troops." I'm going to go to the commanders and say give me a plan to win. You can't send your troops into harm's way unless you give them every opportunity to be successful.
Source: Fox News/Facebook Second Tier debate transcript
, Aug 6, 2015
Iran nuclear deal is bad for America & Israel
A strong supporter of both Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Jindal believes that the Obama administration has been purposely disrespectful to the Jewish state.
Positioned as a hawk on Iran, Jindal has criticized the continued nuclear talks led by the Obama administration, calling them "a bad deal for America and Israel."
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series
, Jun 24, 2015
Keep option to send US ground troops to fight ISIL
On the Islamic State, Jindal says he would keep open the option of sending U.S. ground troops. The Louisiana governor has said that sending U.S. ground troops to fight the
Islamic State militants should be an open option and he has criticized President Obama for his policy of limiting military deployment to the region to trainers and other specialists
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series
, Jun 24, 2015
No deal with Iran that lets them become a nuclear power
Jindal has recently jumped aggressively into foreign affairs--not natural territory for the governor. This week, for instance, Jindal trumpeted the fact that he had "signed on" to a letter that 47 Republican senators had sent to the Iranian government
seeking to undermine a potential deal to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions.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.
Source: Wash. Post 2015 coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls
, Mar 14, 2015
Prevent the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Fight terrorists wherever the hide, keeping them on the run with broad strategies to disrupt terrorist’s resources and operations. Prevent the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, as terrorist groups attempt to steal discarded or unprotected
Cold War era weapons materials. Prevent countries such as North Korea and Iran from developing nuclear weapons and missile technologies. Continue to make the tracking of terrorist financing the center of America’s counterterrorism efforts.
Source: 2004 House campaign website, BobbyJindal.com
, Nov 2, 2004
Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days.
To provide for the redeployment of US Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq. Requires within 90 days to commence the redeployment; and to complete such redeployment within 180 days after its commencement. Prohibits the use of DOD funds to increase the number of US forces serving in Iraq in excess of the number serving in Iraq as of January 1, 2007, unless specifically authorized by Congress. Authorizes retaining in Iraq US forces for providing security for diplomatic missions; for targeting al-Qaeda; and for training Iraqi Security Forces. Requires the President to transfer to the government of Iraq all interest held by the US in any military facility in Iraq. Proponents support voting YES because:
This war is a terrible tragedy, and it is time to bring it to an end. This is a straightforward bill to redeploy our military forces from Iraq and to end the war in Iraq. This bill does not walk away from the Iraqi people.
It specifically continues diplomatic, social, economic, and reconstruction aid. Finally, this bill leaves all the decisions on the locations outside of Iraq to which our troops will be redeployed wholly in the hands of our military commanders.
Opponents support voting NO because:
This legislation embraces surrender and defeat. This legislation undermines our troops and the authority of the President as commander in chief. Opponents express concern about the effects of an ill-conceived military withdrawal, and about any legislation that places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military commanders in the field. The enemy we face in Iraq view this bill as a sign of weakness. Now is not the time to signal retreat and surrender. It is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining superpower on earth, continue to be a voice for peace and a beacon for freedom in our shrinking world.
Reference: Out of Iraq Caucus bill;
Bill H R 2237
; vote number 2007-330
on May 10, 2007
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date.
Voting YES would support the following resolution (excerpted): - Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;
- Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;
- Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives--- Honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror;
- Declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
- Declares that the United States is committed to the completion of
the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;
- Declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
Reference: Resolution on Prevailing in the Global War on Terror;
Bill HRES 861
; vote number 2006-288
on Jun 12, 2006
Page last updated: Apr 15, 2020
