Tulsi Gabbard on War & Peace Democratic Presidential Challenger; HI Rep.

Oppose Bush-Clinton-Trump policy of regime-change wars

These are wars that have cost us as American taxpayers trillions of dollars since 9/11 alone. As president, I will end this foreign policy, end these regime change wars, work to end this new cold war and arms race, and instead invest our hard-earned taxpayer dollars actually into serving the needs of the American people right here at home.

End the regime change war in Syria

GABBARD: First of all, we've got to understand the reality of the situation there, which is that the slaughter of the Kurds being done by Turkey is yet another negative consequence of the regime change war that we've been waging in Syria. Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime change war in Syria that started in 2011, along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing and cheerleading this regime change war. As president, I will end these regime change wars by doing two things: ending the draconian sanctions that are really a modern day siege; and I would make sure that we stop supporting terrorists like Al-Qaeda in Syria who have been the ground force in this ongoing regime change war.

Indefinite stay in Syria IS "endless war"

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

GABBARD: What you're saying is that you would continue to support having U.S. troops in Syria for an indefinite period of time to continue this regime change war that has caused so many refugees to flee Syria, that you would continue to have our country involved in a war that has undermined our national security, you would continue this policy of the U.S. actually providing arms and support to terrorist groups in Syria because they are the ones who have been the ground force in this regime change

No arbitrary deadline, but out of Afghanistan in one year

No war with Iran: it would escalate region-wide

And it wouldn't be just contained within Iran. This would turn into a regional war. This is why it's so important that every one of us, every single American, stand up and say no war with Iran. We need to get back into the Iran nuclear agreement, and we need to negotiate how we can improve it.

Obviously, if there was an attack against American troops, then there would have to be a response. But a war with Iran is incredibly dangerous. Trump needs to get back into the Iran nuclear deal and swallow his pride, put the American people first.

Troops home from Afghanistan; we're no better off than 2001

RYAN: You have to stay engaged in these situations. We must have our State Department engaged. We must have our military engaged to the extent they need to be.

GABBARD: Is that what you will tell the parents of soldiers killed in Afghanistan? "Well, we just have to be engaged?" As a soldier, I will tell you, that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. We are in a place in Afghanistan where we have lost so many lives. We've spent so much money. Money that's coming out of every one of our pockets, money that should be going into communities here at home. We are no better off in Afghanistan today than we were when this war began.

RYAN: If the US isn't engaged, the Taliban will grow.

GABBARD: The Taliban was there long before we came in. They're going to be there long before we leave. We cannot keep US troops deployed to Afghanistan thinking that we're going to somehow squash this Taliban.

Ending regime change wars allows investment at home

No regime change in Iran; no war in Yemen

• She unequivocally states her opposition to U.S. "regime change" interventions, as well as the New Cold War and arms race with Russia, and supports rejoining the Iran nuclear deal. She was also an original cosponsor of Representative Khanna's Yemen War Powers bill.
• Gabbard voted at least twice (in 2015 and 2016) not to repeal the much-abused 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, and she voted three times not to limit the use of Pentagon slush funds.

No more wars for regime change, like Syria and Afghanistan

Her biggest obstacle: Her foreign policy has also been a source of controversy. In 2017 she met President Bashar Assad in Syria and has questioned the international consensus that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its own citizens.

"I served in a war in Iraq, a war that was based on lies," she said. "I think that the evidence needs to be gathered." She refused to label Mr Assad as a "war criminal"--a position that sets her well apart from the majority of US politicians and the American people.

U.S. government lied to American people to launch Iraq War

Gabbard also would not say whether she would trust the American intelligence community as president. "We have, in our recent past, a situation where our own government told lies to the American people, and to the United Nations for that matter, to launch a war," she said.

Oppose regime change wars in Syria, Venezuela, Iran

End US support for Saudi-led conflict in Yemen

• In general, Gabbard believes the U.S. should be less involved in foreign conflicts and have a smaller troop presence in many places around the world. She has specifically called on the U.S. military to pull out of Afghanistan.
• Gabbard also opposes US military presence and action in Syria.
• The congresswoman believes U.S. action around the world often benefits extremists. She also has argued that Democrats and others should not back away from the term "Islamic extremists."
• Gabbard has said the US is complicit in a humanitarian disaster by giving support to the Saudis, because they have cut off aid to large parts of the Yemeni population while battling rebels there.
• She also sent a controversial tweet that was highly critical of Trump following news that the U.S. was standing by Saudi leadership despite intelligence implicating the kingdom's crown prince in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
• Gabbard believes Saudi Arabia is a hub of anti-Western extremism.

Use military to fight terrorists, not for regime change

"In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I'm a hawk," she told the Hawaii Tribune-Herald last year. "When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I'm a dove." Gabbard lambasted the Obama administration for avoiding the phrase. In one interview, she told the host that "the vast majority of terrorist attacks conducted around the world for over the last decade have been conducted by groups who are fueled by this radical Islamic ideology."

Gabbard complained that by "not using this term 'Islamic extremism' and clearly identifying our enemies," the administration couldn't "come up with a very effective strategy to defeat that enemy."

Opposes fighting in Afghanistan & Syria; end arms to Saudis

Iraq was a war we never should have gotten into

Policy allowing women in combat roles long overdue

Gabbard: I think that the policy change [allowing women in combat] was long overdue and reflected kind of a catching up to the reality of some of the jobs that women have been doing in combat situations now for some time. Within the last 12 years that our country has been at war, it's been a very unconventional type of combat. It's different from former concepts of "the front lines" and "the rear," and who is doing what, and where the attacks are coming from.

End our involvement in Afghanistan

Opposes combat operations in Afghanistan.

Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.

Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Afghanistan: Do you support United States' combat operations in Afghanistan?'

No military force against Iran without Congress approval.

Axios.com summary: The House passed a symbolic war powers resolution directing President Trump to halt the use of military force against Iran unless he obtains approval from Congress.

The big picture: A classified briefing on the killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani [by the US military] left Democrats and even some Republicans deeply skeptical, with many claiming that officials did not provide evidence that there was an "imminent" threat from Iran. Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) said they will vote in favor of a similar resolution in the Senate [S J Res 68].

What opponents are saying: Former national security adviser and notorious Iran hawk John Bolton tweeted: "The 1973 War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Constitution allocated foreign affairs authority between the President and Congress. The Resolution should be repealed." Pres. Trump quote tweeted Bolton and added: "Smart analysis, I fully agree!"

What supporters are saying: Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was one of the few Republicans to vote in favor of the resolution, stating on the House floor: "Killing Soleimani was the right decision, but engaging in another forever war in the Middle East would be the wrong decision." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced legislation that would block funding for offensive military force against Iran without congressional authorization. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) is also seeking to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which has been used repeatedly to justify war in the Middle East in the wake of 9/11. Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the AUMF in 2001, criticizing it as a "blank check."

Legislative outcome: H Con Res 83 Passed House 224-194-13 on 1/9/20; S J Res 68 passed Senate 55-45-0 on 2/13/20. Vetoed 5/6; Senate veto override failed 5/7/20.