5 Questions with Kiron Skinner on Rand Paul, Reagan, and the GOP Race

September 17, 2015

For special access to experts and other members of the national security community, check out the new War on the Rocks membership.

This is a very special #NatSec2016 edition of our 5 Questions series.  I had a chance to speak with Kiron Skinner, the director of the Institute of Politics and Strategy at Carnegie Mellon University and a foreign policy adviser to Sen. Rand Paul’s presidential campaign.  She answered questions about Sen. Paul, the GOP race, and Ronald Reagan.  And of course, we asked our special War on the Rocks-themed fifth question!

Remember to sign up for our #NatSec2016 newsletter to get our weekly roll-up of the politics of national security!

1. You’ve advised a number of Republican presidential candidates in the past.  In this election cycle, you’re advising Sen. Rand Paul.  What drew you to his campaign?

From the start of his career in politics, Rand Paul has had a genuine appreciation for the factors that make the United States strong at home and abroad.  Among them is continually addressing the issue of race and rights in our country.  His heartfelt engagements with African Americans drew me to him.  That’s one of the reasons I am part of his campaign team.

2. Sen. Paul is frequently labeled a libertarian.  Beyond the national security issues for which his position is widely known — drone usage and the NSA, for example — to what extent do his views on security and foreign policy more broadly differ from those of the other presidential candidates in the GOP field?

For Sen. Paul’s last five years in public life, he has repeatedly stated that he is neither an isolationist nor an interventionist. He is someone who believes in the Constitution and believes that the United States should have a strong national defense.  The senator believes that we should defend ourselves when it is in our national interest to do so.

As Sen. Paul puts it: “We need a hammer ready, but not every civil war is a nail.”

Specifically, Sen. Paul believes that America should not fight wars unless they are authorized by Congress, and that there must be a clear objective when we go to war. For example, the ill-fated decision to attack Libya after Qaddafi peacefully surrendered his weapons program destabilized the region and discouraged Iran from similar cooperation.  Sen. Paul believes we must overcome the damaging hypocrisy of our unconstitutional intervention in Libya and follow a grand strategy of consistent principles that recognize our limits and preserve our might.

3. The electorate is generally believed to be more concerned with national security issues than it has in the past couple election cycles.  Which issues, in particular, do you expect to feature most in the campaign?  How does that affect the type of advice you would give to Sen. Paul?

Understanding the requirements of war is clearly important for U.S. citizens, especially after more than a decade of being engaged in two wars in the broader Middle East.  The rise of the Islamic State is an issue for U.S. citizens because the terrorist organization and the network it has spawned threatens us at home and abroad and they seek to destroy the West.  My advice to presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul is really an encouragement: Continue to demand that any decisions around war and international conflict include the constitutional involvement of the Congress.  These decisions cannot and should not be made by political cabals in and around the White House.

4. You’ve studied and written extensively about Ronald Reagan, including co-authoring two bestselling books on him.  What aspects of Reagan’s presidency, and what features of the geopolitical landscape from his era, offer the most useful lessons for candidates running in 2016?

Ronald Reagan was president during the first decade of the Global War on Terror.  He assumed office on the day that U.S. citizens were coming home after being held in captivity in Tehran.  Later, he faced the Lebanon hostage crisis, with U.S. citizens held there, at the hands of Hezbollah.  It was during the Reagan years that the U.S. Central Command and the U.S. Special Operations Command became operational.  One lesson on terrorism from the Reagan years is to put the institutional structures in place for the evolving threats to U.S interests.  The next president is going to have to look very closely at the status of military forces, our security arrangements around the world, and our laws that protect privacy while guaranteeing security.   There is a lot of work to do in this regard.  Studying how the Reagan national security team put the institutional building blocks in place in the 1980s for the twenty-first century challenges surrounding global terrorism while still fighting the Cold War is instructive for the next president.  We sometimes forget just how heavy a lift President Reagan faced in the anarchic environment of the international system; he was finishing of the last war of the twentieth century (the Cold War) while gearing up for the new threat (terrorism), which is one of our principal threats now.

5. As we all know, campaigns are a bit like roller coasters, with ups and downs.  When something big happens — a surge in the polls, a straw poll victory, or a great debate performance — what will be imbibed if you’re the one ordering the celebratory drinks?

Mojitos for all.

 

John Amble is managing editor of War on the Rocks.

 

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

We have retired our comments section, but if you want to talk to other members of the natsec community about War on the Rocks articles, the War Hall is the place for you. Check out our membership at warontherocks.com/subscribe!

4 thoughts on “5 Questions with Kiron Skinner on Rand Paul, Reagan, and the GOP Race

  1. I appreciate Ms. Skinner’s experience, but I believe she may have mischaracterized the 2011 US intervention in Libya.

    The turning point which forced the US’s hand was the impending humanitarian disaster in Benghazi, after Gaddafi ordered his military to bombard the city with tanks and artillery and slaughter all 2 million inhabitants. In the context of previous US failures to intervene in African humanitarian atrocities of the ’90s, the pleas of the entire Arab League for intervention, and the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, it was both logical and constitutional for the President to join the international community in intervening in Libya.

    Presenting the issue as a matter of “weapons program” enforcement is entirely disingenuous.

    1. 1) Whether there was a humanitarian disaster impending or not is debatable, particularly when there were contacts between the US and Libyan government that offered an end to war before Gaddafi was executed. It’s particularly noticeable that the Pentagon was leading on the chance for ending the conflict, and not the State Department: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/?page=all Clinton wanted a scalp for her wall (“We came, we saw, he died.”) and got it.

      2) Where in the Constitution does it say that the UN is justification for anything? There was no imminent threat to the US from Libya, so nothing under the War Powers act justified an unauthorized intervention.

      3) The “weapons program” agreement is applicable – there was at least an implicit agreement with Gaddafi that surrendering his nuclear materials would revoke his “outlaw” country status and provide the same protections of sovereignty that other countries enjoy. The US intervention there (and the failure to intervene in the Ukraine, another country that gave up their nukes, this time for explicit guarantees to their security) has shown that the US’s word is worthless, and the best deterrent is a nuclear one.

    2. Mitch,

      I’d recommend you read the Foreign Affairs article “Obama’s Libya Debacle.” https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/2015-02-16/obamas-libya-debacle

      There is convincing evidence that the west was largely deceived by Libyan expats hoping gain from Gaddafi’s removal.

      By the time NATO intervened the rebellion was all but defeated at the cost of only 1000 lives. “Just then, however, Libyan expatriates in Switzerland affiliated with the rebels issued warnings of an impending “bloodbath” in Benghazi, which Western media duly reported but which in retrospect appear to have been propaganda. In reality, on March 17, Qaddafi pledged to protect the civilians of Benghazi, as he had those of other recaptured cities, adding that his forces had “left the way open” for the rebels to retreat to Egypt. Simply put, the militants were about to lose the war, and so their overseas agents raised the specter of genocide to attract a NATO intervention—which worked like a charm. There is no evidence or reason to believe that Qaddafi had planned or intended to perpetrate a killing campaign.”

  2. Kiron is a cool name.

    Anyway, nice to read something about Sen. Paul that is positive. I can’t imagine the morale of his campaign workers is very high but hopefully they keep plugging away. My advice to the Sen. is that he fine tune his language. Be clear and concise. I don’t mean sound-bites I mean no wishy-washy language. When asked a question answer yes or no and then explain your reasoning.

    I will be supporting and voting for Sen. Paul here in NH. Why? The rest of the GOP candidates are useless.