Dick Durbin Quotes

Local Arab partners and the Iraqi government must lead the fight against ISIL. U.S. military advisers are important to this effort, but we cannot be engaged in combat operations. That is why Congress must revoke the previous war authorization and define our appropriate role in defeating ISIL.

We can make sacrifices to fight Islamic State, but the international coalition has to support us.

If your goal is to destroy ISIS, there needs to be a ground force. It could be American or foreign.

As we continue to make great progress in the war on terror, now more than ever, it is important that members of the international community stand-by and bolster the efforts of the emerging diplomatic leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our troops are committed to bringing security to Iraq while its government matures. American forces will continue to accomplish their mission with caution, precision and honor with the thanks of a grateful nation.

I said that America's role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners.

I believe there should be no arbitrary date set for withdrawal and yet no permanent, unending deployment. No cut and run, yet measured progress in helping a people who want to be free without an illusion of overnight success.

I believe sincerely that we should bring in U.N. peacekeepers and bring our troops home.

I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war.

This policy of containment is not a winning strategy. We need a policy to defeat and destroy ISIS once and for all.

If the U.S. wants to destroy ISIS, it can destroy ISIS. We won't end terrorism around the world. But we can destroy ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Prominent generals are telling us that. Prominent national-security strategists are telling us that. So let's do it.

One thing is certain: we will not be successful in this fight against ISIS and other extremist groups unless countries in the region are a major part of the coalition.

We have a duty to fight ISIS; air operations alone will not defeat ISIS.

Our troops shouldn't be mired in taking land for the Afghan military, providing force protection and fighting a permanent insurgency.

We're making progress. Our military is assisting in Iraq. And we're hoping that within the year we'll be able to push ISIS out of Iraq and then, you know, really squeeze them in Syria.

War is much too serious a thing to be left to military men.

There is only one option in Iraq: that we win.

The struggle against terrorists in the territory of Syria should be structured in cooperation with the Syrian government, which clearly stated its readiness to join it.

I am one who believes that we are, in fact, engaged in a worldwide war against terrorism. We must have the serenity to accept the fact that war is not going to go away if we ignore it.

This nation's elected leaders owe all Americans the duty of formulating an Iraqi policy based on sound analysis of the actual facts.

War is too serious a matter to leave to soldiers.

As proud and capable as it is, I think the idea that the military can build new countries is a tall order, and it's the sort of thing that we would only expect from a military that we have superresourced and thought of as supercapable.

You can't just drop the 82nd Airborne into Baghdad and it will all be over.

If I have any choice I would prefer Western Troops.

From a very strategic level, I believe the military is part of the solution to better outcomes around the world, but at a higher level, it's really about economies.