What Does Rand Paul Think America Owes Our Kurdish Allies?

[juleswin]

John McCormack,National Review Fri, Oct 11 4:20 PM CDT

In 2014, Republican senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was all over the map on what, if anything, the United States should do to stop the growing army of jihadists known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

In June 2014, after ISIS conquered Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city at the time, Paul was very skeptical of even using American air power against ISIS. Airstrikes against ISIS could turn America into “Iran’s air force,” Paul wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled, “America Shouldn’t Choose Sides in Iraq’s Civil War.”

As American public opinion changed, so did Paul’s policy toward U.S. involvement in the war against ISIS. As late as August 29, 2014, Paul still wasn’t sure if “ISIS is a threat to our national security.” But then Paul, who harbored presidential ambitions at the time, abruptly issued a statement saying that he would destroy ISIS militarily.

“Some pundits are surprised that I support destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) militarily. They shouldn’t be,” Paul wrote on September 4 in Time magazine. “If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS.” Many of Paul’s non-interventionist allies were baffled by his change of mind. “The sudden evaporation of Paul’s doubts reeks of political desperation,” wrote Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at the libertarian magazine Reason.

In 2015, Paul settled on a plan to defeat ISIS by arming the Kurds and promising them a country: “I think they would fight like hell if we promised them a country.”

The Kurds did fight like hell: 11,000 died fighting ISIS. But this week, President Trump decided it was not worth keeping 100 or fewer U.S. troops in northern Syria to deter a Turkish attack on America’s Kurdish allies. Rand Paul loudly cheered him on.

On Wednesday, I noted Paul’s 2015 comments about promising the Kurds their own country on the Corner, and on Thursday Senator Paul responded with a statement emailed by his communications director. “I did and still do support a homeland for the Kurds — in Iraq — anyone who conflates the Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran into one simple homogenous, easily solvable problem is either naive or disingenuous,” Paul said in the statement.

For the record, I never conflated the Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran “into one simple homogenous, easily solvable problem.” My post simply pointed out that Paul had gone from promising to reward the Kurds who would fight ISIS with their own country to cheering on a decision to merely move — but not bring home — 100 or fewer U.S. troops in order to enable Turkey’s plan to slaughter America’s Kurdish allies.

Senator Paul still supports a Kurdish homeland in Iraq, he says. But many of the Kurds who fought the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria live in Syria, not just Iraq. What do we owe them?

Did we owe them better than abruptly pulling out 100 troops whose presence kept Turkey at bay? Does it really stand to reason that just because Turkey is a member of NATO we needed to do them a solid and abandon our battlefield allies who suffered more than 10,000 deaths in recent years in a war against one of America’s worst enemies?

Won’t abandoning the Kurds make it more difficult for America to recruit allies in the future to fight our enemies, undermining a key objective of interventionists and non-interventionists alike? Wouldn’t fulfilling Paul’s promise to help stand up a Kurdish country involve a much greater American commitment than keeping 100 U.S. troops in northern Syria?

These are some of the questions I’d like to ask Senator Paul. His communications director told me Thursday she had passed along the interview request, but I haven’t heard back and doubt I will.

The Kentucky senator did find time Thursday to write on Twitter that the “bloodlust” of his fellow Americans who disagree with President Trump’s decision “knows no bounds.” But as freshman Congressman Dan Crenshaw of Texas, a veteran of the Afghanistan war, wrote: “The great irony of the ‘no more endless wars’ camp’s argument is that removing our small and cost-effective force from Northern Syria is causing more war, not less. Our presence there was not meant to engage in endless wars, it was there to deter further warfare.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/does-rand...212019204.html

This is the problem I see with Rand dipping his does into interventionism and then trying to take it out without it causing all sorts of ripple effects. When he acknowledged that bombing ISIS will give the impression that the US is Iranian air force, he just admitted that the Iranians where indeed fighting ISIS. So by his logic for rewarding people fighting ISIS, what happens to the Iranians, Syrians, Russians fighting ISIS? would it have been better had he instead have asked for less sanctions on those country so they can take the fight to them without US obstruction?

And now that the Kurds have helped us defeat ISIS, what is he doing about the plan to give them their own homeland? He wouldn't have had any of these problems had he not supported arming the Kurds and promising them other people's land. His father preached minding our own business but Rand instead tried to modify this solid policy.

Lastly despite my absolute hatred of the traitorous Kurdish people(the ones that abandoned their country men and neighbours and fighting with the US) and what Rand would like to tell you. The 50 -100 in Northern Syria now being relocated to other areas in Syrian was preventing the military operation we are seeing today causing less bloodshed. I doubt the Turks would have attacked US military position in Syria if Trump had left them there

Sadly, he has lost a lot of credibility when it comes to anti war issues. Yes, he is not as bad as the neocons but he is no where nears his dad in this regards.

[Swordsmyth]

The 50 -100 in Northern Syria now being relocated to other areas in Syrian was preventing the military operation we are seeing today causing less bloodshed. I doubt the Turks would have attacked US military position in Syria if Trump had left them there

So you want us to stay?

[juleswin]

So you want us to stay?

Yes and no. think of it this way, if I stabbed you in the liver, you wouldn't want someone to come in a pull out the knife without first getting some IV lines placed, have several units of blood and maybe a general surgeon in the room before pulling the knife out. Yes, the knife is not supposed to be there in the first place but now that it is there you wanna safely pull it out.

The US could have worked with the Syrian, Turkish and Russian govt to work out a plan before leaving. Rand Paul accusing people of wanting bloodshed sound very hypocritical when the policy he now support is causing the bloodshed.

The problem Rand has is that he want to sound pragmatic on foreign policy half of the time and the other half want to act as a principled non interventionist. I don't think you can have it both ways.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes and no. think of it this way, if I stabbed you in the liver, you wouldn't want someone to come in a pull out the knife without first getting some IV lines placed, have several units of blood and maybe a general surgeon in the room before pulling the knife out. Yes, the knife is not supposed to be there in the first place but now that it is there you wanna safely pull it out.

The US could have worked with the Syrian, Turkish and Russian govt to work out a plan before leaving. Rand Paul accusing people of wanting bloodshed sound very hypocritical when the policy he now support is causing the bloodshed.

The problem Rand has is that he want to sound pragmatic on foreign policy half of the time and the other half want to act as a principled non interventionist. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Then your position only differs from Rand's in who you want us to help before we leave.

[juleswin]

Then your position only differs from Rand's in who you want us to help before we leave.

All I am saying is that Trump could have worked out a less chaotic withdrawal than what we have now and Rand is making a big mistake by blindly supporting his plan

[Swordsmyth]

All I am saying is that Trump could have worked out a less chaotic withdrawal than what we have now and Rand is making a big mistake by blindly supporting his plan

You want us to stay and help and there is no guarantee that we will ever leave.

[Stratovarious]

All I am saying is that Trump could have worked out a less chaotic withdrawal than what we have now and Rand is making a big mistake by blindly supporting his plan

What do you suggest as a less chaotic plan?

[juleswin]

You want us to stay and help and there is no guarantee that we will ever leave.

Not quite, see we have a group traitorous genocidal manics in the Kurds that we have made promises to, we armed them, gave them cover with our air force and asked them to help in the fighting of ISIS. Yes, these group deserves all the bad karma they can get but there is something wrong with the US abandoning this group without at least a diplomatic appeal

[juleswin]

What do you suggest as a less chaotic plan?

Getting the kurds to negotiate a truce with Assad and then get the Syria army and maybe Russia to secure the area, talking to the Turks for a peace deal. I am not saying it has to succeed but the lack of effort is troubling.

[Swordsmyth]

Not quite, see we have a group traitorous genocidal manics in the Kurds that we have made promises to, we armed them, gave them cover with our air force and asked them to help in the fighting of ISIS. Yes, these group deserves all the bad karma they can get but there is something wrong with the US abandoning this group without at least a diplomatic appeal

No, there is not.
And most importantly we must stop wasting American blood and treasure on something of no benefit to Americans.

[Stratovarious]

Getting the kurds to negotiate a truce with Assad and then get the Syria army and maybe Russia to secure the area, talking to the Turks for a peace deal. I am not saying it has to succeed but the lack of effort is troubling.

So , we should continue with the endless wars until we get someone else to continue the endless wars...... I think I see ....
We continue with killing all over the globe, I'm getting this , a little slow but I think I'm really coming around.

[juleswin]

So , we should continue with the endless wars until we get someone else to continue the endless wars...... I think I see ....
We continue with killing all over the globe, I'm getting this , a little slow but I think I'm really coming around.

That is not at all what I am saying. There could have been rounds of negotiations with Syria, Turkey, Kurds and the other parties involved to conduct a coordinated transition of the armed forces in the area. Some kind of amnesty and disarmament would be granted to the traitorous kurds. Not saying this has to work or take months to implement but you had to do something before taking all troops out.

[Stratovarious]

That is not at all what I am saying. There could have been rounds of negotiations with Syria, Turkey, Kurds and the other parties involved to conduct a coordinated transition of the armed forces in the area. Some kind of amnesty and disarmament would be granted to the traitorous kurds. Not saying this has to work or take months to implement but you had to do something before taking all troops out.

There is never going to be a convenient time to start adhering to our constitution, for all of Trumps faults,
this is not one of them.