Ron Paul on McMaster To NSC – More Troops To Middle East?

President Trump’s pick for National Security Advisor, Gen. H.R. McMaster, holds some views on Russia that seem to be at odds with the policy positions of his boss. He believes that Russian “aggression” began when the US began to withdraw from the world militarily, around 2008. He believes the US military needs to be more forward deployed. He has also stated publicly that Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, which is factually incorrect. What are his views on why radicals in the Middle East seek to do us harm? Join us for today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

3 thoughts on “Ron Paul on McMaster To NSC – More Troops To Middle East?”

  1. First of all, Raimondo needs to come to his senses. Because the confusion won’t exist at all if we all come to the obvious conclusion that Trump and McMaster are speaking the same foreign policy.

    Unless somebody wants to suggest that McMaster has gone renegade on Trump and Trump will slap him back to his senses?

    It’s over with Trump folks, and every day we hear examples of why it’s over. It’s just not realistic to hold out any antiwar hope in Trump.

  2. Daniel misspoke. He said that McMaster is a smart man who has a Ph.D and wrote a book.
    No, that’s incorrect and no hope should be placed in it. Smart has nothing to do with a smart antiwar stance. Ron and Daniel don’t seem to understand that.

    And it only took to the 6 minute mark to hear that they are both still holding out hope in what Trump said on US/Russia relations during his campaign speeches. That tells us that we’re still not making any progress on understanding that Trump is a phony on his foreign policy babbling.

    Ron and Daniel aren’t quite where Raimondo is on Trump but they’re not far from it. Who of the three of them will lead the way out of it all?

  3. As I understand McMasters book it is to make the case that the Joint Chiefs of Staff should have insisted on 500,000 troops in order to win the war in Vietnam. Doesn’t that ignore the legitimacy of the need to be in Vietnam to begin with?

    As I understand wore it began with advisers, expanded with the bombing program and with the necessity to protect the air bases commitment of ground troops who’s number continue to rise. At what point did the 500,000 number come up and was the military really prepared to walk away if they could not get it? It seems ludicrous.

    Does McMaster in his book knowledge that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie which the military and the CIA contrived to bring this country into the war?

    The military ultimately received the number of troops and still could not win. What responsibility should be military except for the failure? It is always convenient to blame politicians for what the military leaders cannot achieve on the field. If they had only been given more support, more troops, atomic weapons or expanding the war.

    When McMaster leads us into a war with Russia or Iran will he use the same excuse when things don’t go well?

    I don’t hear him or the one in the military making the case that Ukraine or Crimea are not in our vital interests and are not worth the loss of life or wealth.

Comments are closed.