Paul Hackett Quotes

You don't spread democracy through the barrel of a gun.

... even political opponents of evil governments show little gratitude for American invasion to modernize them..

Regime change cannot be the objective of military action.

I would hope that we have in place the adequate resources to become an army of occupation because you’re going to walk into chaos

Is military occupation likely to be the midwife of democracy?

Preemption, democracy promoting and nation building have all been sullied by association by association with the War in Iraq.

…The invasion of Iraq was the worst foreign policy mistake in American history. We invaded a country that was no threat to us…. We have lost so much of our world prestige and world leadership.

The United States armed forces and coalition troops deserve recognition and support for their work to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and ensure the safety and security of the American people, civilians abroad, and the people of Iraq.

The Second World War is and was constantly being drudged up by Blair and Bush to rationalize the invasion of Iraq.

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.

Anybody who believes that we can democratize Iran, Iraq and Syria by military force is living in a fantasy world.

There are two things that will always be difficult for a democratic people to do: to start a war and to finish it

Our country is being bled daily in an effort to create a democracy in a place where it never existed.

In order to have defense here at home, we have to have offense in Iraq and Iran.

Can a foreign army, particularly with a vastly different culture, be a successful counterinsurgent?

I never subscribed to what you might call the neo-Conservative position that somehow, at the barrel of a gun, overnight, liberty and democracy could be conjured up.

Aristotle might not recognize it, or others who are at the root of democracy. What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

Let's be clear: Neither Secretary Powell or I opposed the notion of removing Saddam Hussein by force, but we wanted to avoid the war if we could. But if we couldn't, the notion of removing Saddam Hussein from the scene seemed eminently sensible, given that you had, what, 16 or so U.N. Security Council resolutions basically saying the same thing.

Imposing democracy through force is a roll of the dice.

One of the extraordinary features of the Blair government has been its slavish support for the central tenets of Bush's foreign policy - above all, the war in Iraq. During the Cold War, the Wilson government resisted the suggestion that it should send troops to Vietnam.

If there is no direct threat why are we invading?

We remain in Iraq because we know that sometimes liberty needs some nursing before it can grow on its own.

In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself.

When you decide to get involved in a military operation in a place like Syria, you've got to be prepared, as we learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, to become the government, and I'm not sure any country, either the United States or I don't hear of anyone else, who's willing to take on that responsibility.

A democracy is severely restricted in its use of armed forces as a weapon of peacetime foreign policy. It cannot manipulate them tactically on any extensive scale for the accomplishment of measures short of war.