Gov. Scott Walker says he would re-invade Iraq if necessary


Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he wouldn’t rule out a full-blown re-invasion of Iraq if he were to become the next commander-in-chief.

The likely Republican presidential candidate and early frontrunner in several polls said he would consider a re-invasion if it were deemed necessary to protect American national security at home and abroad.

“It would not be limited to anything out there,” Walker told ABC’s Jonathan Karl in an exclusive interview with for “This Week.” “Once we start saying how far we’re willing to go or how many troops we’re willing to invest, we send a horrible message, particularly to foes in the Middle East who are willing to wait us out.”

Apparently Gov. Walker isn’t a big believer in learning from the mistakes of the past, because the first Republican-led Iraq war only served to completely destabilize that country, leaving it a hot, HOT mess. What’s more, I’d argue in destabilizing Iraq, Republicans created a much bigger national security threat than the one that existed prior to our invasion of that country.


Related Articles

9 thoughts on “Gov. Scott Walker says he would re-invade Iraq if necessary

  1. “What’s more, I’d argue in destabilizing Iraq, Republicans created a much bigger national security threat than the one that existed prior to our invasion of that country.”


    Gov. Walker’s ignorance of the military is appalling. He’s never heard of troop-to-task ratios.—XLS-spreadsheets

    His reckless comments are an invitation to extremists. If the U.S. can unilaterally invade sovereign countries, why can’t they attack the U.S.?

    The Powell Doctrine was developed as a result of the failures in Vietnam. It should govern any commitments of combat resources.

    The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

    Is a vital national security interest threatened?
    Do we have a clear attainable objective?
    Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
    Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
    Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
    Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
    Is the action supported by the American people?
    Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

    The U.S. has land, air, and naval supremacy in the Middle East. The civil wars there are battles of “hearts and minds.” It doesn’t matter how many U.S. troops he sends.

  2. “ISIS is turning US Humvees into Iraq’s worst nightmare”

    “More than two-thirds of the Humvees the US supplied to Iraq to fight terrorists have ended up in the hands of Islamic State militants.

    And the Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, and Daesh), has not wasted any time in converting those vehicles into one of its deadliest and most nightmarish tools: suicide car bombs.


    Read more:

  3. Walker’s “chutzpa” is monumental, almost beyond belief.

    But ,yes, he continues to utter uneducated or inexperienced opinions revealing the depth of his stupidity and why he failed as a student at Marquette, as Milwaukee County Executive, and more recently as a governor, and why he is reviled in Wisconsin more than any public official since Joe McCarthy.

    Walker’s only success, if you can call it that, is his ability to deceive, prevaricate, or mislead.

    His political assaults on Wisconsin citizens or to “divide and conquer” are an abuse of power and immoral, if not criminal, in my opinion.

  4. Hmm I’m afraid to say I may actually agree with him.

    It’s really hard to understate the atrocities going on under the self-proclaimed Islamic State. We are seeing the wholesale mass murder and enslavement of huge populations.

    If this “Islamic State” is allowed to stand and grow for too long, what exactly will it look like fifty years from now after the continued mass murder becomes an accepted fact of life and the children born of mass rape are most all indoctrinated under the twisted fundamentalist version of Islam this “Islamic State” preaches.

    Many people looking back at World War II may wonder why the US stayed out so long, with all of the atrocities going on. I have a very bad feeling history won’t look poorly on how this “Islamic State” is being allowed to grow.

    I am not saying we should invade, but I would agree with a statement that taking invasion off the table would be a massive mistake. I don’t often agree with Governor Walker on many issues, but this time I just might.

    1. BofCudahy,

      1. What’s your initial military objective? Please be specific.

      2. How many U.S. soldiers are you willing to lose to meet your initial military objective?

      3. President Bush declared, “Mission Accomplished.”

      Was he wrong?

      4. Are you an Iranian?

      Isn’t it true that IS is Sunni, and opposes Iran and the Shi’a in their civil war?

      1. I do not claim to be a military expert, but I don’t believe shunning the option (ever) of military action when it comes to an organization so incredibly brutal, openly carrying out the mass extermination of opposition amongst other crimes against humanity, is a good idea.

        1. Also, last I checked Cudahy isn’t in Iran. I actually believe in the total separation of church and state so Iran is the antithesis of my values. Frankly I fail to see how expressing horror at the crimes of the so-called Islamic State would warrant such a comment. Iran is not any country to be admired, but it’s saintly compared to ISIS. That is not a complement to Iran, but underscores just how terrible ISIS is. Heck, Saudi Arabia is a downright terrible place, but again it looks like paradise compared to the territory this “Islamic State” controls.

          I really hope I’m wrong. Seriously though, left unchecked this could be a global problem once an entire generation is indoctrinated.

          Lastly it’s just sickening that it seems the only thing preventing this from happening was the iron fisted brutality of mass murderers like Saddam Hussein, Al-Assad, and Gadhafi. When it’s looking more and more like Al-Assad was correct in his claim that he was fighting terrorists, it’s just depressing. And no, that isn’t a compliment for any of those barbarians, nor is it a claim Al-Assad didn’t brutally crack down on opposition. The fact is though, now it’s even worse than it was before. I don’t think pledging to ignore it is the best course of action, even if jumping in guns blazing would be stupid too.

          1. BofC

            “I actually believe in the total separation of church and state so Iran is the antithesis of my values.”

            So, you’re against Israel?

            They have no separation of synagogue and state.

Comments are closed.