Lindsey Graham likens Mitt Romney's foreign policy to that of Jimmy Carter
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
/ CBS"From the party's point of view, the biggest disaster would be to let Barack Obama become Ronald Reagan and our people become Jimmy Carter," said Graham, according to the Hill.
Romney said during Mondays' GOP presidential debate that the U.S. should "bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can," in a fashion that was consistent with the recommendations of commanders in the region, and argued that the U.S. couldn't "try and fight a war of independence for another nation."
"Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan's independence from the Taliban," Romney said.
Graham argued that Romney's characterization of the war, from the perspective of U.S. interests, was problematic.
"This is not a war of independence," he said. "This is a war to protect America's national vital security interests."
Graham expressed overall discontent with how Republican presidential candidates addressed the issue in the previous night's debate.
"No one articulated last night a strategic vision why it's important we get it right in Afghanistan, what happens to our country if we don't," he said.
Republican presidential candidates have so far expressed fairly distinct viewpoints on the issue, many of which back away from more hawkish doctrines espoused by many Republicans in recent years.
Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor and recent ambassador to China, argued that a swift military withdrawal from Afghanistan (with contingencies) was the will of the American people - and in the best interest of improving the U.S. economy.
"There's the desire on the part of most Americans to begin phasing out as quickly as possible," he said, according to the New York Times.
"This would mean that the very expensive boots on the ground may be something that is not critical for our national security needs," he continued. "Nor is it something we can afford at this point in our economic history. I think most Americans would say it's probably a good transition point."
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, for his part, argued that while the terms of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan should be determined by the word of military commanders and ground conditions there, the goal was not to "rebuild their country."
"We have to remember why we invaded the country in the first place," he said, according to the Times.
And while Pawlenty noted that the time for withdrawal had not yet arrived, given the security conditions there, he argued that "our mission in Afghanistan is not to stay there forever or to stay there for 10 more years to rebuild their country."
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., expressed disappointment over the national security discussion in Monday's debate.
"I didn't see anyone really articulate the real sense of urgency and what Republicans stand for," he said, according to the Hill. "Republicans were tending to try to moderate and be everyone's friend, with the exception of our friend from the pizza shop," he said, referring to candidate Herman Cain.
"I was incredibly disappointed," Graham said, of the debate, according to the Wall Street Journal. "No one seemed to have a passion for the idea that we're fighting radical Islam and the center of that battle is Afghanistan."
He added that, given the current dialogue among the GOP presidential contenders, he feared Republicans could lose their authority on national security issues.
"I'm not going to let that happen without some speaking out," he said.
Popular in Politics
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 459 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test
- Will tornado relief funding escape politics? 47 Comments
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 219 Comments
All we're doing in Afghanistan is spending $$ and mutilating our kids. So why are we still there? Contractors. The contractors are BANKING off of the war, and the contractors just happen to be the same big multinationals (GE, Haliburton, etc) with so many lobbyists & politicians in their pockets (from both sides of the aisle) that they're practically spilling over.
Don't get me confused with the run-of-the-mill liberal. War used to be a much simpler business. If the "natives" didn't submit, you killed all men of fighting age, and all of their sons that would grow up to avenge them. Your men bred with the women to give them sons that were citizens of your "empire". You took the spoils, resources, of the land. If there was no way to completely kill or co-opt those left, you destroyed all resources you couldnt carry, in a "salted earth" type campaign. You left the heads of their leaders on pikes to show your strength. Humans fought this way for thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of years- and it worked. Now we're trying to play a game that's simple un-winnable. We're using $100k missiles/bombs to kill a few "bad guys" and save the lives of a few civilians... and we're going bankrupt doing it.
We could have turned Afghanistan into a parking lot for what we spent in the first month or two there. Now we're drowning a slow death, falling directly into the trap that Bin Laden wanted us. Afghanistan has been the "graveyard of Empires" for thousands of years. We have the weaponry to change that, but it wouldn't enrich the multinational Corps with no-bid contracts.
Either we fight, kill, and leave with the oil and the opium production (for pharmaceuticals)- or we just leave. We win nothing by losing more money and more lives, just so the Plutocrats can continue to enrich themselves and their pets. Everyone knows the contractors have been bribing the Taliban/AlQuaeda to keep the convoys safe for years now. That's not war, that's just business for the contractors- and both Americans & Afghanis are dying to put $$ into the (barely taxable) coffers of the contractors.
Conservatives like myself would not vote in the last election for macain and we will not vote for someone like romney.
of difference between the Republicans and Democrats. On the whole, the parties
are indistinguishable, both committed to an ever larger, more intrusive, more
powerful, and more expensive Leviathan in Washington. Vote Ron Paul 2012 and lets put a real conservative in office.
While I am not a Romney fan, it is clear that the politicians have been running the war in Afghanistan, and NOT the military. That is the formula for failure, and failure is what we have.
The US has not actually fought a single war since WW 2, that we actually have tried to win. We worry too much about the opinions of other countries, about how we fight the wars. Heck, we are so pre-occupied with not losing people, we now have unmanned drones doing much of the fighting. That is not how wars are won. You cannot ***** foot around, and win. You have to do, what needs to be done, and you have to be willing to do harm.
Since we aren't actually trying to win, in Afghanistan, then it is clear, we are wasting our time and effort, and we need to pull out. Plain and simple. As long as the politicians tie the hands of the military, then it is a wasted, and excessively expensive, effort.
Therefore, I would back Romney's statement on that war.......it is time to end it.
WHICH ARE?????
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20071230-503544.html#ixzz1PMRUisfq