Richard Grenell Quotes

We're in danger of breaking our army and preventing our national leaders from having the flexibility to confront not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but crises around the globe.

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.

There are a lot of things that have to be considered in National. The military aspect of it is only one of them. I'm confident that President Bush will have all of those things laid out for him before he makes the decision.

There's no way in the world that the United States does not want to spread democratic ideals, but the first thing we have to do is that which is the interest of our security.

The policy of the United States does not flow from transitory considerations.

Power is a necessary condition for enduring foreign-policy success but not a sufficient one.

No one can think intelligently on the many complicated problems of American foreign policy unless he decides first what he considers the real purpose and object of that policy…. Fundamentally, I believe the ultimate purpose of our foreign policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of the United States.

A President who wants to focus on domestic affairs must put foreign policy in a framework that Americans understand and that makes them feel secure.

For nearly 7 decades United States has been the anchor of global security. This is meant more than forging international agreements. It has meant enforcing them.

America remains the indispensable nation. There are times when America, and only America, can make a difference between war and peace, between freedom and repression.

The United States has become geopolitically hobbled seemingly interested in grand strategic initiatives or transformative diplomacy, as its attention constantly dances from one crisis to another.

Political considerations can be taken into account only as long as they do not make demands that are militarily improper or impossible.

Are there topics of sufficient import to the nation's well-being to replace the Soviets as the focus of U.S. intelligence?

All over the world, the Trump administration is pursuing a range of policies: tweeting insults at Maduro, negotiating with a defiant North Korea, sending a small fleet of warships to the Persian Gulf to intimidate Iran. But the speed with which the president always sours on these efforts means they can never be part of any discernible strategy.

Unlike President Obama, I would say that I support the long-standing bipartisan post-war belief that American global strength and leadership secures our national-security interests, and it also promotes order and stability in the world. And it gives us immense influence in the world and deters our adversaries and reassures our allies.

It's important that all around the globe that the United States is pursuing the most effective foreign policy possible.

Our safety at home and the cause of freedom abroad is largely contingent upon our success in Iraq.

Nixon was an awful president in many ways, including in some of his foreign-policy choices. But he left no doubt that foreign policy and America's leadership in the world outside its borders was of paramount importance to him.

War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it does reflect in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions.

Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance U.S. interests.

Too often in Washington we tend to see foreign policy as an abstraction, with little understanding of what we are committing our country to: the complications and consequences of endeavors.

I believe the U.S. already understands and will understand more and more that only a strong Russia will respond to the genuine interests of the United States.

So I think that our foreign policy, the president's strong and principled leadership when it comes to the war against terror and foreign policy is going to be an asset.

And when we draw lines in the sand with regard to certain basic things that are vital to our interest and to the interest of democracy and our friends around the world, we have to be willing to back that up.

You can't tell me that all the wars we are fighting are in America's national security interest.