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

[Dianne]

http://time.com/3268581/rand-paul-i-...-isolationist/

If I had been in President Obama's shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS



Some pundits are surprised that I support destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) militarily. They shouldn’t be. I’ve said since I began public life that I am not an isolationist, nor am I an interventionist. I look at the world, and consider war, realistically and constitutionally.

I still see war as the last resort. But I agree with Reagan’s idea that no country should mistake U.S. reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.

As Commander-in-Chief, I would not allow our enemies to kill our citizens or our ambassadors. “Peace through Strength” only works if you have and show strength.

Our recent foreign policy has allowed radical jihadists to proliferate. Today, there are more terrorists groups than there were before 9/11, most notably ISIS. After all the sacrifice in Afghanistan and Iraq, why do we find ourselves in a more dangerous world?

And why, after six years, does President Obama lack a strategy to deal with threats like ISIS?

This administration’s dereliction of duty has both sins of action and inaction, which is what happens when you are flailing around wildly, without careful strategic thinking.

And while my predisposition is to less intervention, I do support intervention when our vital interests are threatened.

If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session—even during recess.

This is what President Obama should have done. He should have been prepared with a strategic vision, a plan for victory and extricating ourselves. He should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it.

Once we have decided that we have an enemy that requires destruction, we must have a comprehensive strategy—a realistic policy applying military power and skilful diplomacy to protect our national interests.

The immediate challenge is to define the national interest to determine the form of intervention we might pursue. I was repeatedly asked if I supported airstrikes. I do—if it makes sense as part of a larger strategy.

There’s no point in taking military action just for the sake of it, something Washington leaders can’t seem to understand. America has an interest in protecting more than 5,000 personnel serving at the largest American embassy in the world in northern Iraq. I am also persuaded by the plight of massacred Christians and Muslim minorities.

The long-term challenge is debilitating and ultimately eradicating a strong and growing ISIS, whose growth poses a significant terrorist threat to U.S. allies and enemies in the region, Europe, and our homeland.

The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage.

We should arm and aid capable and allied Kurdish fighters whose territory includes areas now under siege by the ISIS.

Since Syrian jihadists are also a threat to Israel, we should help reinforce Israel’s Iron Dome protection against missiles.

We must also secure our own borders and immigration policy from ISIS infiltration. Our border is porous, and the administration, rather than acting to protect it, instead ponders unconstitutional executive action, legalizing millions of illegal immigrants.

Our immigration system, especially the administration of student visas, requires a full-scale examination. Recently, it was estimated that as many as 6,000 possibly dangerous foreign students are unaccounted for. This is inexcusable over a decade after we were attacked on 9/11 by hijackers including one Saudi student who overstayed his student visa.

We should revoke passports from any Americans or dual citizens who are fighting with ISIS.

Important to the long-term stability in the region is the reengagement diplomatically with allies in the region and in Europe to recognize the shared nature of the threat of Radical Islam and the growing influence of jihadists. That is what will make this a comprehensive strategy.

ISIS is a global threat; we should treat it accordingly and build a coalition of nations who are also threatened by the rise of the Islamic State. Important partners such as Turkey, a NATO ally, Israel, and Jordan face an immediate threat, and unchecked growth endangers Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Gulf countries such as Qatar, and even Europe. Several potential partners—notably, the Turks, Qataris, and Saudis—have been reckless in their financial support of ISIS, which must cease immediately.

This is one set of principles. Any strategy, though, should be presented to the American people through Congress. If war is necessary, we should act as a nation. We should do so properly and constitutionally and with a real strategy and a plan for both victory and exit.

To develop a realistic strategy, we need to understand why the threat of ISIS exists. Jihadist Islam is festering in the region. But in order for it to grow, prosper, and conquer, it needs chaos.

Three years after President Obama waged war in Libya without Congressional approval, Libya is a sanctuary and safe haven for training and arms for terrorists from Northern Africa to Syria. Our deserted Embassy in Tripoli is controlled by militants. Jihadists today swim in our embassy pool.

Syria, likewise, has become a jihadist wonderland. In Syria, Obama’s plan just one year ago—and apparently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s desire—was to aid rebels against Assad, despite the fact that many of these groups are al-Qaeda- and ISIS-affiliated. Until we acknowledge that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria allowed ISIS a safe haven, no amount of military might will extricate us from a flawed foreign policy.

Unfortunately, Obama’s decisions—from disengaging diplomatically in Iraq and the region and fomenting chaos in Libya and Syria—leaves few good options. A more realistic and effective foreign policy would protect the vital interests of the nation without the unrealistic notion of nation-building.

Paul is the junior U.S. Senator for Kentucky.

[Warlord]

Shouldn't this be in the Rand Paul sub forum?

[helmuth_hubener]

I disagree with what Rand is saying here. I think that most here who are Rand supporters also hope and believe that Rand also disagrees with what Rand is saying here.

[phill4paul]

He's right. He's not an isolationist. Not much of a non-interventionist either.

[Brett85]

Jennifer Rubin is still saying that Rand is a radical isolationist who shares his father's foreign policy views, despite his stance on this. These people are just ridiculous. If you don't support every war or every intervention, you're a radical isolationist pacifist. Rand is going to make these people look ridiculous to the general public when they continue to call him an "isolationist" in the GOP primary.

[mit26chell]

What does Rand Paul not understand about only going to war if we are threatened or there is an imminent attack likely? Why is he starting to include in his justification for war 'protecting out national interests?' What exactly are our national interests? I have to assume he considers Israel to be one, even though we have no treaty with Israel. . .

[economics102]

Ugh. I wish this editorial was just a bad dream. I really don't think I can get behind this.

Let me get this straight: we have to fight a war halfway around the world to defend an embassy that we absolutely don't need? How about we just close the $#@!ing embassy?

[Brett85]

What does Rand Paul not understand about only going to war if we are threatened or there is an imminent attack likely?

You can make the argument that there's an imminent attack likely in this situation. If this situation doesn't qualify as an imminent threat, I'm not sure what would.

[Warlord]

By the way this is top rated on DRUDGE

[Shane Harris]

Nope. This is intervention. That makes him an interventionist. You're either for non-intervention and DEFENSE, or you're for intervention and OFFENSE. This would clearly be OFFENSE.

[economics102]

An imminent attack on a base we shouldn't have...

[Shane Harris]

You can make the argument that there's an imminent attack likely in this situation. If this situation doesn't qualify as an imminent threat, I'm not sure what would.

And Saddam had WMDs remember. That was a really imminent threat. And North Korea threatens us all the time. And how about the USSR 50 years ago. Now if we could only do something about the actual imminent threat that our police pose to us on a daily basis, 1 mile away, instead of the boogeymen 1000s of miles away.

[Vanguard101]

Nope. This is intervention. That makes him an interventionist. You're either for non-intervention and DEFENSE, or you're for intervention and OFFENSE. This would clearly be OFFENSE.

If this is the logic of the average libertarian, I'm sorta cautious to associate myself with you guys.

[KingNothing]

An imminent attack on a base we shouldn't have...

And? The fact is, we do have it. You can't allow Americans to be killed just because previous administrations did dumb $#@!.

[KingNothing]

And Saddam had WMDs remember. That was a really imminent threat. And North Korea threatens us all the time. And how about the USSR 50 years ago. Now if we could only do something about the actual imminent threat that our police pose to us on a daily basis, 1 mile away, instead of the boogeymen 1000s of miles away.

You realize that ISIS is lopping American heads off, right? Going to congress and presenting a case for war or marque against them, is entirely justified. In fact, I would NOT trust a president who did anything but that. Nutjob Muslims are actually a threat to Americans. They aren't an existential threat to America, but they are definitely a threat to individual Americans, and if we can kill them before they kill us, and we have proof that they are trying to harm us, we absolutely should kill them. Anything else is foolish.

[MaxHen]

You realize that ISIS is lopping American heads off, right? Going to congress and presenting a case for war or marque against them, is entirely justified. In fact, I would NOT trust a president who did anything but that. Nutjob Muslims are actually a threat to Americans. They aren't an existential threat to America, but they are definitely a threat to individual Americans, and if we can kill them before they kill us, and we have proof that they are trying to harm us, we absolutely should kill them. Anything else is foolish.

So, we should wage war every time a war reporter who deliberately goes into a combat zone knowing the risks of doing so gets killed?

[mosquitobite]

So, we should wage war every time a war reporter who deliberately goes into a combat zone knowing the risks of doing so gets killed?

This is my position as well.

Journalists go into these areas KNOWING the risks involved.

[phill4paul]

So, we should wage war every time a war reporter who deliberately goes into a combat zone knowing the risks of doing so gets killed?

^^^This.

[CaptUSA]

Oh man... As most of you know, I'm a pretty staunch supporter of what Rand has been trying to do. I get it.

But this one stings. My only hope is that this is his way of reassuring the establishment that he'd play ball when called upon.

The very fact that he refers to himself as Commander-in-Chief means that there is no question that he is running. But I hope that his record will be better than his rhetoric.

This one's hard to take. You could take those words to craft just about any justification for intervention you'd like.

[Christian Liberty]

Shouldn't this be in the Rand Paul sub forum?

No. Absolutely not. Rand can't be criticized in Rand's subforum.

I disagree with what Rand is saying here. I think that most here who are Rand supporters also hope and believe that Rand also disagrees with what Rand is saying here.

So true. Rand would call his dad "indecisive." Lol.

Jennifer Rubin is still saying that Rand is a radical isolationist who shares his father's foreign policy views, despite his stance on this. These people are just ridiculous. If you don't support every war or every intervention, you're a radical isolationist pacifist. Rand is going to make these people look ridiculous to the general public when they continue to call him an "isolationist" in the GOP primary.

I actually think that Rand qualifies as a hawk in the grand scheme of things, compared to any reasonable standard. The problem is that even Rand's hawkish views look "pacifist" compared to the true monsters in the senate.

Rand would look like a genocidal maniac by the standards of 200 years ago. This is the overton window in action.

You can make the argument that there's an imminent attack likely in this situation. If this situation doesn't qualify as an imminent threat, I'm not sure what would.

lol! You have an imagination, use it

If this is the logic of the average libertarian, I'm sorta cautious to associate myself with you guys.

Good. Don't. We don't WANT interventionists associating themselves with us. The quicker you figure that out, the better.

Oh man... As most of you know, I'm a pretty staunch supporter of what Rand has been trying to do. I get it.

But this one stings. My only hope is that this is his way of reassuring the establishment that he'd play ball when called upon.

The very fact that he refers to himself as Commander-in-Chief means that there is no question that he is running. But I hope that his record will be better than his rhetoric.

This one's hard to take. You could take those words to craft just about any justification for intervention you'd like.

This

[Tywysog Cymru]

How does ISIS pose a threat to us? They can't even conquer Iraq and Syria.

[phill4paul]

If this is the logic of the average libertarian, I'm sorta cautious to associate myself with you guys.

Then don't. You truly do not get what was proposed by Shane and are likely never to.

[Brett85]

And Saddam had WMDs remember. That was a really imminent threat. And North Korea threatens us all the time. And how about the USSR 50 years ago. Now if we could only do something about the actual imminent threat that our police pose to us on a daily basis, 1 mile away, instead of the boogeymen 1000s of miles away.

Not even remotely close to the same situation. Those countries never threatened us, never killed our people, and weren't expanding across the world and committing mass genocide.

[phill4paul]

Not even remotely close to the same situation. Those countries never threatened us, never killed our people, and weren't expanding across the world and committing mass genocide.

Killing our people? A couple of journalists in a war zone? Those countries never threatened us? Are you serious? Not worth the time googling the threats that have been made to the U.S. of A. from Saddam, North Korea and Russia. Waste your own time educating yourself. Expanding across the globe? Well, I haven't encountered them in the Carolinas yet so...yawn.

[T.hill]

This is something I can't agree with Rand on.

[presence]

Smedley Butler would not approve these shenanigans

[economics102]

And? The fact is, we do have it. You can't allow Americans to be killed just because previous administrations did dumb $#@!.

I agree, IF there's a rationale for keeping the base. In this case, there's not. So we should close the base and not chase after people who are no longer a threat, rather than behaving like Charles Bronson.

[cajuncocoa]

If this is the logic of the average libertarian, I'm sorta cautious to associate myself with you guys.

Speaking only for myself, the feeling is mutual.

[JohnGalt23g]

Jennifer Rubin is still saying that Rand is a radical isolationist who shares his father's foreign policy views, despite his stance on this. These people are just ridiculous. If you don't support every war or every intervention, you're a radical isolationist pacifist. Rand is going to make these people look ridiculous to the general public when they continue to call him an "isolationist" in the GOP primary.

I'll paraphrase Chris Matthews, paraphrasing Pat Buchanan, quoting Richard Nixon: Buchanan, when you see a committee of people all getting together to stop 'X', put your money on 'X'...

[twomp]

You realize that ISIS is lopping American heads off, right? Going to congress and presenting a case for war or marque against them, is entirely justified. In fact, I would NOT trust a president who did anything but that. Nutjob Muslims are actually a threat to Americans. They aren't an existential threat to America, but they are definitely a threat to individual Americans, and if we can kill them before they kill us, and we have proof that they are trying to harm us, we absolutely should kill them. Anything else is foolish.

Do you know why they were lopping American heads? They did it AFTER Obama's air strikes. The keyword being AFTER. You see, we kill them, they kill us. Tough to understand, I know. After the first journalist died, they said stop the air strikes and they won't kill the second guy but you and your fellow part time non-interventionists kept clamoring for more air strikes for justice and peace. So they killed the second guy and so now you use that as an excuse to go to war. If you want them to stop lopping American heads? Stop bombing them, come home and watch our borders. It isn't that difficult.