Martin O'Malley Quotes

I would only go to Syria to destroy ISIS. I would not use U.S. troops to depose Assad. But I would support the rebels there. It's okay to support those people who share your view. But for the United States to be embroiled in a civil war in Syria against [Bashr] Assad I think is a big mistake.

Many in the U.S. military believe ISIS needs to be immediately, and repeatedly, smashed by American drones and warplanes.

Our enemy in Syria is Daesh: it's not about containing but destroying this organisation.

It's - getting Assad out is not the only priority. And so what we're trying to do is obviously defeat ISIS.

We must abandon the failed policy of nation-building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, in Libya, in Egypt and in Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terrorism and doing it now, doing it quickly.

I see a bit of a contradiction between the fight against the Islamic State and the desire to remove the Assad regime. And even if you work with Russia, I'm just not sold that working with Russia is an effective way to hasten the end of the Assad regime or to enact any type of punitive measures.

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

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror.

On one level, bombing ISIS is easy. The U.S. knows where the group operates. There's no need for a ten-year hunt like the one for Osama bin Laden. The terror group has two capital cities: Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria. Al-Qaeda never had such an obvious home address.

By ending the Hussein regime, the United States has taken away yet another incubator of terrorism.

Relying on the Iraqi Army to fight ISIS in Iraq is problematical, but there are no other options.

I watched the Bush administration overreact to the Clinton administration, who believed they did too much nation building, sustaining other countries, and that's why we never put the commitment on Afghanistan and Iraq that should have been in there under their policy leadership.

Let's have a conversation about how we destroy ISIS.

If anything caused ISIS, it was the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

I thought the best way to topple Assad was not through airstrikes, but through equipping the moderate rebel elements.

I want to see ISIS destroyed.

We don't have enough American troops inside of Iraq to destroy ISIL any time soon.

I think Hillary Clinton is right. I think it isn't enough to leave [Bashir] Assad in place, because as long as he is there, there is going to be a recruiting magnet for ISIS.

I think, broadly speaking, the US military's role - US military activism in various parts of the Islamic world over the past several decades has been counterproductive.

And the problem is, I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong, but I can't, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam.

We need to focus on killing the bad guys, not getting stuck in Middle Eastern civil wars that don't keep America safe.

Russia hasn't paid any attention to ISIS. They're interested in keeping Assad in power.

[Hillary] Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be. Yes, we could get rid of Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS.

You want to bring the Assad regime down? You have to beat the Russians and the Iranians in Syria. That is not going to happen. Like it, don't like it - it's not going to be very pleasant.

Look at the results of regime change in Iraq. You can't possibly claim that it was successful.