Bobby Jindal on War & Peace
Republican Governor; previously Representative (LA-1)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
|Other candidates on War & Peace:||Bobby Jindal on other issues:|
2016 Democratic Candidates:
2016 Third Party Candidates:
Mayor Mike Bloomberg(I-NYC)
2016 GOP Candidates:
About Bobby Jindal: