Rand Paul vs. Ron Paul on ISIS

He doesn’t want an open-ended authorization of force and opposes Obama’s plans for arming the so-called moderate Syrian opposition.

But, Rand Paul made clear in a Sept. 4 editorial for Time, “I support destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) militarily.”

His father, famously firm in his non-interventionist beliefs, doesn’t.

“If we weren’t there nobody would be getting killed,” Ron Paul says. “If ISIS still existed without us being there, maybe [Syrian President Bashar] Assad and maybe Iran would take care of them.”

“They hate each other and we hate ‘em all – except for the Free Syrian Army, those moderates who made $50,000 handing over the journalist to ISIS – if that isn’t an insane foreign policy I don’t know what the definition of insanity is,” he says, referring to reports that U.S.-backed rebels helped jihadis capture journalist Steven Sotloff, who was recently beheaded.

More here.

As horrible as the recent beheadings are, President Obama should only drop bombs if homeland security is at stake. It isn’t. The last thirteen years should have taught policymakers about the unintended consequences of robust military adventurism. Apparently it hasn’t.

Advertisements

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: