Rand Paul op-ed: ‘I Am Not an Isolationist’

[ProIndividual]

I think that there exists waaaay too many isms. I suppose it's what we get when everyone wants a say so.

This didn't defeat my factual point on the definition of either non-interventionism or isolationism. It didn't validate your point that non-interventionists here are somehow necessarily isolationists. They aren't all isolationists...only the protectionism advocates are.

The avoidance of -isms is just another -ism. There is no such thing as someone without a philosophy...when people criticize any -ism, they themselves are logically using an -ism to do it, even if they deny it. A person in a vegetative state I suppose could be absent -isms, but that's about it. To get out of bed in the morning you exhibit the assumption of an objective reality, as you expect, usually without looking, that floor will be there to meet your feet.

[DeMintConservative]

I think any attempt to apply a broad ideology to foreign policy, especially with regards to war and peace, is doomed to fail. Be it isolationism, non-interventionism, interventionism. They're just different sides of the same coin. In this realm, circumstances ought to trump principle. I've very Burkean in this regards. It's unsettling one lacks a clear set of axioms to fall on, but there's no such thing as optimal policy situations to the ills of the world. One of the few reasons why we need a government is to keep the country safe from foreign aggressors and the idea that we can isolate our way to perpetual peace is just as silly as the idea we can achieve peace through perpetual war. The commanding principle is keeping American and her interests safe; the rest are just a succession of prudential judgements, on which one should err on the side of caution because war is a very dangerous thing.

In this current case of IS/Iraq/Syria, I see no good reason for a military intervention. I don't think pacifying that region -to the extent it's within our means to do it, like a return to the 08-10 status quo- will make America significantly safer (or, for that matter, any safer; in fact I suspect that diverting all those jihadists from going there can make us and our allies more unsafe). And as we know for a fact, it'd be terribly expensive. The idea that it's possible to destroy Sunni jihadism through military means or institute liberal democracies in that part of the globe - two things that would make America and Americans safer, especially the first one- is absolutely utopian. So what's the endgame? I'm sure an American intervention would save peaceful civilians and children's lives, but sadly that's just not a reasonable standard for intervention. Too expensive and dangerous for a humanitarian intervention; it isn't a cruise ship sinking.

Best course of action is to stick with counterterrorism and intelligence. And I'm all for using drones and similar operations to eliminate those who've conspired to kill Americans and save those who can be saved, as long as the risk is reasonable.

[twomp]

I think any attempt to apply a broad ideology to foreign policy, especially with regards to war and peace, is doomed to fail. Be it isolationism, non-interventionism, interventionism. They're just different sides of the same coin. In this realm, circumstances ought to trump principle. I've very Burkean in this regards. It's unsettling one lacks a clear set of axioms to fall on, but there's no such thing as optimal policy situations to the ills of the world. One of the few reasons why we need a government is to keep the country safe from foreign aggressors and the idea that we can isolate our way to perpetual peace is just as silly as the idea we can achieve peace through perpetual war. The commanding principle is keeping American and her interests safe; the rest are just a succession of prudential judgements, on which one should err on the side of caution because war is a very dangerous thing.

In this current case of IS/Iraq/Syria, I see no good reason for a military intervention. I don't think pacifying that region -to the extent it's within our means to do it, like a return to the 08-10 status quo- will make America significantly safer (or, for that matter, any safer; in fact I suspect that diverting all those jihadists from going there can make us and our allies more unsafe). And as we know for a fact, it'd be terribly expensive. The idea that it's possible to destroy Sunni jihadism through military means or institute liberal democracies in that part of the globe - two things that would make America and Americans safer, especially the first one- is absolutely utopian. So what's the endgame? I'm sure an American intervention would save peaceful civilians and children's lives, but sadly that's just not a reasonable standard for intervention. Too expensive and dangerous for a humanitarian intervention; it isn't a cruise ship sinking.

Best course of action is to stick with counterterrorism and intelligence. And I'm all for using drones and similar operations to eliminate those who've conspired to kill Americans and save those who can be saved, as long as the risk is reasonable.

+rep