By the Always Honorable Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky...
* * *
* * *
As the murderous, terrorist Islamic State continues to
threaten Iraq, the region and potentially the United States, it is vitally
important that we examine how this problem arose.
* TWO NAMES: 1) OBAMA; 2) CLINTON.
Any actions we take today must be informed by what we've
already done in the past, and how effective our actions have been.
Shooting first and asking questions later has never been
a good foreign policy. The past year has been a perfect example.
In September President Obama and many in Washington were
eager for a U.S. intervention in Syria to assist the rebel groups fighting
President Bashar Assad's government. Arguing against military strikes, I wrote
that "Bashar Assad is clearly not an American ally. But does his ouster
encourage stability in the Middle East, or would his ouster actually encourage
instability?"
* RAND PAUL WAS CLEARLY RIGHT... OBAMA AND CLINTON (AND THE
NEO-CON RINO CONTINGENT AS WELL) WERE CLEARLY WRONG!
The administration's goal has been to degrade Assad's
power, forcing him to negotiate with the rebels. But degrading Assad's military
capacity also degrades his ability to fend off the Islamic State of Iraq and
al-Sham.
(*NOD*)
To interventionists like former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria
created a haven for the Islamic State.
* YEP!
We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the
Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new
regime might well be ISIS.
* YEP!
This is not to say the U.S. should ally with Assad. But
we should recognize how regime change in Syria could have helped and emboldened
the Islamic State, and recognize that those now calling for war against ISIS
are still calling for arms to factions allied with ISIS in the Syrian civil
war.
* FRIGGIN' IDIOTS...
(*SIGH*)
We should realize that the interventionists are calling
for Islamic rebels to win in Syria and for the same Islamic rebels to lose in
Iraq. While no one in the West supports Assad, replacing him with ISIS would be
a disaster.
Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to
see who to act against next, with little thought to the consequences. This is
not a foreign policy.
* THIS IS OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATION... CLINTON HIS SECRETARY
OF STATE... NOW KERRY HIS SECRETARY OF STATE... BUT ULTIMATELY THE BUCK STOPS
AT THE OVAL OFFICE.
Those who say we should have done more to arm the Syrian
rebel groups have it backward.
* AGAIN... BIPARTISAN IDIOCY IN THE SENSE THAT JOHN
MCCAIN AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ARE "HAWKS OF A FEATHER..."
Mrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria
before asking some important questions. Her successor John Kerry was no better,
calling the failure to strike Syria a "Munich moment."
* SPEAKING OF IDIOTS OF A FEATHER...
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Some now speculate Mr. Kerry and the administration might
have to walk back or at least mute their critiques of Assad in the interest of
defeating the Islamic State.
A reasonable degree of foresight should be a prerequisite
for holding high office. So should basic hindsight. This administration has
neither.
* FOLKS... AS MUCH DAMAGE AS BUSH'S MISTAKES CREATED...
(*PAUSE*)... JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO GO BACK IN YOUR MIND AND TALLY UP OBAMA'S
"RECORD" IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS - EVERYWHERE FROM THE MIDDLE EAST TO THE
FORMER SOVIET UNION TO CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA TO ASIA...
(*STILL SHAKING MY HEAD*)
But the same is true of hawkish members of my own party.
Some said it would be "catastrophic" if we failed to strike Syria.
* MY ONLY CHIDE IS THAT PAUL DOESN'T NAME NAMES.
(AGAIN... LET'S START WITH THAT SENILE WARMONGER JOHN S. MCCAIN!)
What they were advocating for then — striking down
Assad's regime — would have made our current situation even worse, as it would
have eliminated the only regional counterweight to the ISIS threat.
(*NOD*)
* PLUS... PLUS... WE ALREADY HAVE THE IRAQ WAR EXAMPLE -
AND THE EGYPTIAN EXAMPLE AND HONDURAN EXAMPLE AND LIBYAN EXAMPLE - OF WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN WE TOPPLE REGIMES WITH NO REAL "PLAN B" - NO TEMPORARY
PUPPET GOVERNMENT TO PUT IN PLACE!
Our so-called foreign policy experts are failing us
miserably.
* FOREIGN POLICY "EXPERTS"... ECONOMIC POLICY
"EXPERTS"... PRETTY MUCH ALL OUR "EXPERTS" FROM WHAT I CAN
TELL! (AND, AGAIN, THE BUCK STOPS IN THE OVAL OFFICE. THE FISH ROTS FROM THE
HEAD DOWN.)
The Obama administration's feckless veering is making it
worse. It seems the only thing both sides of this flawed debate agree on is
that "something" must be done. It is the only thing they ever agree
on.
But the problem is, we did do something.
* SOMETHING WRONG!
We aided those who've contributed to the rise of the
Islamic State.
* OOPS!
* FOLKS... JUST SIT STILL FOR A MOMENT... RECALL FROM
MEMORY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON LITERALLY SCREECHING "WHAT DOES IT
MATTER...?!?!" CONCERNING THE BENGHAZI DISASTER.
* FOLKS... THIS ISN'T ME BEING PARTISAN. THIS CERTAINLY
ISN'T PAUL BEING PARTISAN. THIS IS PAUL - AND ME - LAYING OUT THE ACTUAL
REALITY OF THE AGE OF OBAMA! (IN SO MANY WAYS A DOUBLE-DOWN ON THE AGE OF
BUSH...)
(*SIGH*)
The CIA delivered arms and other equipment to Syrian
rebels, strengthening the side of the ISIS jihadists. Some even traveled to
Syria from America to give moral and material support to these rebels even
though there had been multiple reports some were allied with al Qaeda.
Patrick Cockburn, Middle East correspondent for the
London newspaper, the Independent, recently reported something disturbing about
these rebel groups in Syria. In his new book, "The Jihadis Return: ISIS
and the New Sunni Uprising," Mr. Cockburn writes that he traveled to
southeast Turkey earlier in the year where "a source told me that 'without
exception' they all expressed enthusiasm for the 9/11 attacks and hoped the
same thing would happen in Europe as well as the U.S."
(*PURSED LIPS*)
It's safe to say these rebels are probably not friends of
the United States.
* TRUE. (AND IT'S ALSO SAFE TO SAY THAT TODAY'S AMERICAN
MEDIA SIMPLY CAN'T BE RELIED UPON WITHOUT BACKSTOPPING BY THE FOREIGN PRESS.)
"If American interests are at stake," I said in
September, "then it is incumbent upon those advocating for military action
to convince Congress and the American people of that threat. Too often, the
debate begins and ends with an assertion that our national interest is at stake
without any evidence of that assertion. The burden of proof lies with those who
wish to engage in war."
* MAKES SENSE TO ME!
Those wanting a U.S. war in Syria could not clearly show
a U.S. national interest then, and they have been proven foolish now. A more realistic
foreign policy would recognize that there are evil people and tyrannical
regimes in this world, but also that America cannot police or solve every
problem across the globe. Only after recognizing the practical limits of our
foreign policy can we pursue policies that are in the best interest of the U.S.
* THIS IS BASIC "TEA PARTY" PHILOSOPHY. THE
LAST 15 YEARS... HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC
PARTIES. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO CONSIDER YOURSELF A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN...
PERHAPS YOU MIGHT WANNA RE-ACCESS?
No comments:
Post a Comment