El senador estadounidense Marco Rubio (R-FL) viajó a Asunción, Paraguay en una visita oficial. Durante su viaje, Rubio se reunió con el embajador de Taiwán en Paraguay, José Han, y reafirmó su apoyo inquebrantable a Taiwán. Paraguay es actualmente el último país en...
RUBIO MEETS WITH TAIWANESE AMBASSADOR TO PARAGUAY, JOSÉ HAN U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) traveled to Asunción, Paraguay on an official visit. During his trip, Rubio met with Taiwanese Ambassador to Paraguay José Han and reaffirmed his unwavering support of...
El senador estadounidense Marco Rubio (R-FL) viajó a Asunción, Paraguay en una visita oficial. Durante su viaje, Rubio se reunió con el presidente Santiago Peña para hablar sobre los desafíos regionales que enfrentan tanto EE.UU. como Paraguay, la importancia de...
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) traveled to Asunción, Paraguay on an official visit. During his trip, Rubio met with President Santiago Peña to discuss the regional challenges both the U.S. and Paraguay face, the importance of our bilateral relations, and ways...
Alexei Navalny’s Death Is a Loss for Russia and the World U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) February 21, 2024 Newsweek …For more than 10 years, [Alexei] Navalny openly opposed the Russian dictator, calling out the “crooks and thieves” in the Kremlin who enabled his...
After years of left-leaning governments, the people of Argentina democratically elected President Javier Milei and Vice President Victoria Villarruel. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, met with President...
Rubio: Let’s reject the veiled isolationism of Obama and Clinton
President Obama’s call on Wednesday for the United States to lead an international military campaign in the Middle East has the potential to begin a departure from the isolationism that he and former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton have advocated during their years in office. There is a risk, however, that the president’s focus on a counterterrorism campaign akin to those waged in Yemen and Somalia, and his reliance on regional partners to deal with the challenge posed by the Islamic State, could lead to the continuation of what has been the most disengaged presidential foreign policy in modern American history.
From his focus on prematurely ending wars in the interest of “nation-building here at home” to his abandonment of America’s traditional allies in an effort to placate America’s enemies, President Obama has made it clear that he is different from his post-World War II predecessors. The question now is whether, facing this new threat, the president will rise to the occasion and truly reassert American leadership.
Five and a half years of the Obama/Clinton worldview has given Americans a graphic and often horrific view of the chaos that is unleashed in the world when America walks away from its traditional role as the guarantor of global security. From Syria and Iraq to eastern Ukraine and the South China Sea, we are seeing what the world will look like if our leaders continue choosing detachment: more violence, rivals and partners alike taking advantage of our inaction, and a steady increase in threats to our citizens and to our prosperity.
The Obama administration did not advocate this global retreat on its own. Members of my own Republican Party have also at times embraced the Democrats’ narrative that too much American leadership is the problem, rather than the solution to global instability. Not too long ago, some neo-isolationists even claimed that America has no significant national interest in the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and that American support for the Syrian opposition fueled the growth of the Islamic State.
The truth is that, when the Syrian people rose up in 2011 in protest against Bashar al-Assad’s brutal rule, our vital national interest was to prevent a protracted civil war in which radical jihadists from all over the world could rush into a vacuum. If they could seize operational spaces, they could use them to plan and carry out attacks against our allies and ultimately America.
In the early stages of this conflict, responsible, bipartisan voices called for U.S. leadership, hoping precisely to prevent the outcome we have now seen play out. I urged Secretary Clinton and President Obama to intervene decisively to oust Assad and to identify and arm the moderate Syrian opposition. Instead, we were told that Assad was a “reformer” and that we should not get involved. At a critical decision point early in the Syrian crisis, when our involvement could have swayed the outcome, the isolationist voices won. America effectively stood on the sidelines, letting the problem fester for more than three years as the moderates opposing the regime were pushed aside by better-funded and better-armed jihadists. Meanwhile, the administration’s incoherent policy further empowered Assad, strengthening his grip on power as chaos, violence and refugees spilled across Syria’s borders, threatening the entire region.
Some former Obama administration officials, notably Secretary Clinton, have tried to argue that they advocated internally for a different approach, that they saw the train wreck coming. But the fact of the matter is that when they were in positions of responsibility, they failed to prevent the situation that now exists. “What are we going to arm them with and against what?” Secretary Clinton said of the Syrian opposition in 2012. She and other administration officials who found their voices only after they left office were complicit in implementing and publicly defending the president’s disastrous foreign policies — and we’ll be dealing with the consequences for decades to come.
When President Obama finally proposed intervening militarily in Syria last year, his primary objective was to censure Assad for using chemical weapons. He argued that America should remain disengaged from the core conflict. He presented no viable plan to remove the Assad regime from power, significantly assist the moderate rebels or substantially degrade the radical jihadists.
More than three years into the conflict, we have done very little to support the non-jihadist opposition. After admitting in a late-August news conference that he had no strategy, the president now assures us that he has a plan to destroy the Islamic State. With any time wasted, the challenge only grows.
While the president abdicated leadership, other regional actors irresponsibly armed groups within Syria without regard for their ideology or goals. These nations chose to do so not because of U.S. involvement, but because of the lack thereof. The result is that today, Syria has become a prime operational space for radical jihadists from around the world.
With its base in Syria, the Islamic State is now perhaps the most extreme, powerful and capable terrorist group ever, with the clear intention of establishing an Islamic caliphate to dominate the region and launch attacks against anyone who doesn’t share its warped ideology.
The group didn’t achieve all this because America was too involved; just the opposite. It rose most quickly in America’s absence and is intent on driving us out of the Middle East. It is counting on us to abandon our support of Jordan, Israel and other allies. It plans to terrorize us into retreat.
America and the Islamic State are on an unavoidable collision course — and there will be a price as we finally confront this challenge. We should not think this struggle will be quick or risk-free. But every American should know that the price of further disengagement now would be greater sacrifice later.
To confront the Islamic State terrorists, we need a sustained air campaign targeting their leadership, sources of income and supply routes, wherever they exist. We must increase our efforts to equip and capacitate non-jihadists in Syria to fight the terrorist group. And we must arm and support forces in Iraq confronting it, including responsible Iraqi partners and the Kurds. In addition, we must persuade nations in the region threatened by the Islamic State to participate in real efforts to defeat it.
Keep reading here.