Paul says in the interview that all of these interventions that Abrams supports did not “work.” Victory may be claimed in a sense from these interventions, Paul suggests, if they “remade the Middle East” so “we had thriving democracies there where civil liberties are being protected and [each country] had a constitution somewhat leaning toward ours.” But, in fact, Paul says “that isn’t the case” as the wars have caused more harm than good.
Indeed, Trump has discussed this failure of US intervention in regard to the Iraq War. Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump brought up his opposition to the United States starting the Iraq War in 2003. In a February of 2016 debate, Trump called the Iraq War a “big, fat mistake,” a mistake that, Trump continued, cost two trillion dollars and thousands of lives. In addition, Trump asserted that “Iran is taking over Iraq, with the second-largest oil reserves in the world.” Concluding, Trump said:
George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.
Therefore, it surprises many people that reports suggest Trump is considering Abrams for a State Department appointment. Abrams continues to support President George W. Bush’s decision to wage war on Iraq.
Watch Paul’s complete interview here:
Paul, along with co-host Daniel McAdams, discussed in detail the potentiality of Abrams as deputy secretary of state in the Tuesday episode of the Ron Paul Liberty Report:
In the Ron Paul Liberty Report discussion, Paul argues that Abrams could be one of the most important Trump appointments, and McAdams offers a possible big reason why Trump would want to consider appointing Abrams to the State Department position. McAdams explains that, while people will say that Abrams “is so different from Trump,” regarding Iran “they are in lockstep: Elliott Abrams agrees with Trump and with [Secretary of Defense James Mattis] and with [National Security Advisor Michael Flynn] that Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism, which is absolutely not true.”
For an in-depth discussion by Paul of his views regarding neoconservatism, read here Paul’s July 10, 2003 US House of Representatives speech “Neo-Conned.”