Chris Gibson Quotes

I believe in not attacking a country pre-emptively unless you're sure of what you're doing and you're working with allies.

Some in my party threaten to send a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and more broadly that they're not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom.

What is the 'noble cause' for which you sent our country to war?

What I've learned, and will try to remember from now on, is that defending your country's credibility is never sufficient reason to fight a war.

Today, war of necessity is used by critics of military action to describe unavoidable response to an attack like that on Pearl Harbor that led to our prompt, official declaration of war, while they characterize as unwise wars of choice the wars in Korea, Vietnam and the current war in Iraq.

Americans must not be given the impression that they have a duty to go to war against every evil leader in the world and against every transgression of the international order.

A United States President should never, never, never, never threaten the use of force unless he is prepared to follow up.

Should President Clinton have killed Osama bin Laden when he had the opportunity in 1990s? Should President Bush have sent the U.S. military into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein in 2003? Should President Obama have withdrawn all troops from Iraq in 2011? Such questions provide no real insight into future considerations.

Reasonable people can differ on whether or not we should have gone into Iraq.

I did not support the U.S. decision to intervene with military force in Libya. The evidence was not persuasive that a large-scale massacre or genocide was either likely or imminent. Policies other than military intervention were never given a full chance.

Wars of necessity are essentially unavoidable. They involve the most important national interests, a lack of promising alternatives to the use of force, and a certain and considerable price to be paid if the status quo is allowed to stand. Examples include World War II and the Korean War.

The major wars that the U.S. became involved in are all ethically defensible.

I think most Americans believe that although it's better not to use military force if you can avoid it, that the world simply doesn't provide us the luxury of giving away military force as an important tool of foreign policy.

If there is no direct threat why are we invading?

If Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us anything in recent history, it is the unpredictability of war and that these things are easier to get into than to get out of, and, frankly, the facile way in which too many people talk about, 'Well, let's just go attack them.'

The doctrine of preemption has a long and distinguished history in the history of American foreign policy.

Most wars, after all, present themselves as humanitarian endeavors to help people.

When the commander-in-chief sends Americans to fight and die, it should be only to protect our vital national interests, not for his own personal, political gain.

President Obama has never summarized the Obama Doctrine with such clarity, but here is what it would look like: 'I will undertake any military attack against our enemies, regardless of the risks and collateral damage, so long as it is over by the time I have to announce it.'

So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

I’m not opposed to all wars; just dumb wars.

We believe in peace, but we are not pacifists. Sometimes we have to use force

Governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate self defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted.

It is not every cause of war that should lead to war.

Do the American people really want their President ... to have no other option than to go to war or do nothing?