Rand Paul lashed out Saturday at military hawks in the Republican Party in a clash over foreign policy dividing the packed GOP presidential field.
Paul, a first-term senator from Kentucky who favors a smaller U.S. footprint in the world, said that some of his Republican colleagues would do more harm in international affairs than would leading Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy, but they would just have done the same thing — just 10 times over," Paul said on the closing day of a New Hampshire GOP conference that brought about 20 presidential prospects to the first-in-the-nation primary state.
"There's a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now, maybe more," Paul said.
That drew a harsh rebuke from Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina senator and Air Force reservist who frequently criticizes Democratic President Barack Obama for not being aggressive enough with adversaries like Iran and the Islamic State. Graham has not yet declared his candidacy but says he will make up his mind in the coming months.
"His foreign policy views are more in line with Obama than they are with the Republican Party," Graham told Reuters.
Foreign policy looms large in the presidential race as the U.S. struggles to resolve diplomatic and military conflicts across the globe.
The GOP presidential class regularly rails against President Obama's leadership on the world stage, yet some would-be contenders have yet to articulate their own positions, while others offered sharply different visions.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose brother, President George W. Bush, authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq, declined to say whether he would have done anything different then. Yet Jeb Bush acknowledged a shift in his party against new military action abroad.
"Our enemies need to fear us, a little bit, just enough for them to deter the actions that create insecurity," Bush said earlier in the conference. He said restoring alliances "that will create less likelihood of America's boots on the ground has to be the priority, the first priority of the next president."
The GOP's hawks were well represented at the event, led by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and several lesser-known White House prospects.
Graham addressed the question of putting U.S. troops directly in the battle against the Islamic State group militants by saying there is only one way to defeat the militants: "You go over there and you fight them so they don't come here."
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz suggested an aggressive approach as well. "The way to defeat ISIS is a simple and clear military objective," he said. "We will destroy them."
New York Rep. Peter King said: "If America becomes isolationist, if America sits back from its responsibilities, that gap is going to be filled by enemies."
Businesswoman Carly Fiorina offered a similar outlook. "The world is a more dangerous and more tragic place when America is not leading. And America has not led for quite some time," she said.
There were few specifics offered in the conference, which came as several presidential candidates accelerate their political operations. Clinton began her campaign last week, and the emphasis on foreign affairs suggests her time as secretary of state will play prominently in the contest.
Paul didn't totally reject the use of military force, noting that he recently introduced a declaration of war against the Islamic State group. But in an interview with The Associated Press, he emphasized the importance of diplomacy.
He singled out Russia and China, which have complicated relationships with the U.S., as countries that could contribute to U.S. foreign policy interests.
"I think the Russians and the Chinese have great potential to help make the world a better place," he said. "I don't say that naively that they're going to, but they have the potential to."
Paul suggested the Russians could help by getting Syrian President Bashar Assad to leave power.
"Maybe he goes to Russia," Paul said.
Despite tensions with the U.S., Russia and China negotiated alongside Washington in nuclear talks with Iran. Paul has said he is keeping an open mind about the nuclear negotiations.
"The people who already are very skeptical, very doubtful, may not like the president for partisan reasons," he said, and "just may want war instead of negotiations."
At this point, Paul appears to be the man out. Most of the other Republicans seen as potential candidates have lined up behind the party's traditionally aggressive approach to foreign policy, despite the unpopularity of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that were started by the last Republican president, George W. Bush.
"Obviously, Rand Paul's an outlier," said former diplomat John Bolton, a foreign-policy hawk who is considering a White House run.
Foreign policy could be an advantage for whichever Republican candidate goes on to face Clinton or another Democrat in the November 2016 election. Likely voters say Republicans are more likely than Democrats to deal with the threat of terrorism by a seven-point margin, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling.
Paul said the United States often creates greater instability when it gets involved in chaotic places. "Why in hell did we ever go into Libya in the first place?"
Speaking a few hours later, Graham said the United States will inevitably have to send ground troops back to the Middle East to avert another September 11-style attack.
"The people taking this stage, telling you 'Just leave them alone, stay away from those people, don't get involved,' well, that won't work because they're not going to leave you alone," he said.