PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul's Sound Foreign Policy Instincts




jct74
09-18-2014, 03:51 PM
Rand Paul's Sound Foreign Policy Instincts

W. James Antle III
September 19, 2014

Rand Paul’s critics and the media, not necessarily mutually exclusive categories, have begun to question whether the senator from Kentucky has a coherent foreign policy.

This growing skepticism certainly matters, but of more immediate importance is that some of Paul’s supporters and sympathizers are starting to wonder the same thing.

As Paul has sounded increasingly hawkish against the terrorist group known as ISIS, many libertarians and conservatives have started to speculate the 2016 presidential possibility has gone over to the dark side.

Paul has been down this road before. When he joined with all but four Senate Republicans in voting to delay Chuck Hagel’s confirmation as secretary of defense, the reaction from many erstwhile admirers was fierce.

“If Rand Paul persists on going demagogic on Hagel,” wrote American Conservative co-founder Scott McConnell at the time, “he will have established beyond any serious doubt that regardless of who his father is, he is Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin’s boy.”

In response to such criticism, Paul suggested some libertarians and antiwar conservatives were missing the bigger picture.

...

read more:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/rand-pauls-sound-fp-instincts-11310?page=show

Brett85
09-18-2014, 04:57 PM
I don't really even think there's a libertarian or non interventionist case to be made against killing members of ISIS with air strikes, when this group has beheaded two Americans, has declared war against America and threatened to attack us, has acquired all kinds of money and weapons, has acquired a large amount of land and oil fields, and when the same type of people attacked us on 9-11. Rand seems to have a very good understanding of the difference between non interventionism and pacifism.

WD-NY
09-18-2014, 04:58 PM
#JamesAntleFTW!!

Krugminator2
09-18-2014, 05:03 PM
I don't really even think there's a libertarian or non interventionist case to be made against killing members of ISIS with air strikes, when this group has beheaded two Americans, has declared war against America and threatened to attack us, has acquired all kinds of money and weapons, has acquired a large amount of land and oil fields, and when the same type of people attacked us on 9-11. Rand seems to have a very good understanding of the difference between non interventionism and pacifism.

Totally agree. Even Pat Buchanan thinks taking military action is perfectly within reason. It is one thing to oppose military action strategically. It is quite another to say bombing is not libertarian. I don't even get that argument.

Inkblots
09-18-2014, 05:07 PM
Rand seems to have a very good understanding of the difference between non interventionism and pacifism.

Bingo.

I'd note, of course, that most of the people who are so deeply concerned about Rand's "lack of consistency" on foreign policy are media concern trolls who (a) never supported him to begin with and (b) have a laughably poor grasp of the theory underpinning his foreign policy. Hence the idea that he should be a pacifist, as you point out.