- Extra-time goal gives Germany World Cup title over Argentina
- Strong quake hits Japan, triggering tsunami
- Sniper heaven: Pentagon’s self-guided bullets leave enemies nowhere to hide
- Violent gang taking advantage of immigration crisis, using border as recruiting hub
- Medicaid enrollment continues to soar under Obamacare, administration says
- Michelle Obama to Latinos: ‘We cannot afford to wait on Congress’ for immigration
- White House urges GOP to act ‘urgently’ on $3.7 billion request for illegal immigrants
- Politicians, criminals using ‘right-to-be-forgotten’ law EU courts forced upon Google
- Combat fatigue: elite special forces troops are ‘fraying,’ Gen. Joseph Votel warns
- German foreign minister to meet Kerry to discuss spying claims
PAUL: The folly of rushing to war
Question of the Day
Standing against military adventurism is not an isolationist ploy
It seems the most common thing for serial interventionists to do these days is to lob the term “isolationist” at anyone who does not agree with their latest folly, and then set up a straw man about those people not wanting to be involved in the world.
I reject this characterization for myself and others who oppose the United States getting involved in the Syrian civil war.
War is too serious and too deadly for that to enter into our calculations. This is not about scoring political points. This is about taking an intelligent, critical look at the past 15 years of our foreign policy and asking ourselves if we are going about this the right way.
After Sept. 11, 2001, when we were attacked by terrorists, we launched a war against Afghanistan. I supported that war and still believe we were justified and made the correct decision to go. President Bush sought and received the consent of Congress and clearly had the support of the American people.
More recently, President Obama has sought to insert our armed forces into internal wars, with no clear security interest for the United States, and no clear sense of what victory would look like.
Opposing this is not isolationism. It is not withdrawing from the world. It is simply an attempt at a more intelligent, reasoned foreign policy than we have become accustomed to in recent years.
Being a realist means looking at each situation carefully, thoughtfully and individually. I do not reflexively want to rush to war, nor am I reflexively against using our military when the situation calls for it.
I think this is a sound set of parameters, and I think this is where most Americans fall, even if sometimes their politicians are elsewhere.
In the case of Syria, even if you think we should take some military action — and I don’t think the case has been made for this — the logical questions that follow are:
1. What are the military goals, and what would victory look like?
2. What are the chances of success, rather than simply taking action to send a message?
3. What is the exit strategy, and what happens next?
In Syria, no one has articulated for me a clear military goal. No one has articulated what “victory” looks like. In fact, I’ve noticed that at the end of the day, the military action seems designed to end in stalemate rather than clear victory. This is unacceptable.
Over the past few days, Russia has offered to negotiate a deal with Syria to have their chemical weapons put under international control, and Syrian President Bashar Assad has agreed. Diplomacy, if sincere, would be a welcome resolution. But can we trust the participants in this plan?
The possibility of a diplomatic solution is a good thing, though we must proceed with caution on the details.
One thing is for certain: The chance for diplomacy would not have occurred without strong voices against an immediate bombing campaign. If we had simply gone to war last week or the week before without asking any questions, as many advocated, we wouldn’t be looking at a possible solution today.
The voices of those in Congress and the overwhelming number of Americans who stood up — and said, “Slow down!” — allowed this possible diplomatic solution to take shape.
While we wait for diplomacy, Mr. Obama has called for a temporary delay on a vote in Congress. I see the vote on whether to go to war in very personal terms. I will not vote to send my son, your son or anyone’s daughter to war unless a compelling American interest is present. I am not convinced that we have a compelling interest in the Syrian civil war, and I will push for a permanent delay of this vote.
As this debate and acts of diplomacy unfold, let’s leave the labels at the door and debate the merits of what is being proposed in Syria. Let’s take a good, hard look at the lessons of the past few years. Let’s seek a more intelligent answer to problems than what we’ve come up with recently.
Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Homeland Security committees.
TWT Video Picks
By Robert N. Tracci
Congress must use its appropriations power to secure the border
Get Breaking Alerts
- DOJ investigates Nebraska parade float critical of Obama
- Agency scrubs Malia Obama photos at White House's request: report
- A 'new Cold War': China's top paper warns of 'slippery slope' towards conflict with U.S.
- Violent gang MS-13 taking advantage of immigration crisis, using border as recruiting hub
- Emeryville, Calif., police chief: Guns aren't for defense
- Pentagon's self-guided bullets leave enemies nowhere to hide
- New York City creates ID card so 500K illegal immigrants can get services
- Armed militia sets up Texas command center to 'fight for national sovereignty'
- CURL: The hypocrisy of Obama's 15-day Vineyard vacation
- Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi formerly a U.S. captive
Recent Letters to the Editor
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: How many boondoggles to break the bank?
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: The problem is unenforced borders
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Where are condolences for Jewish teens' deaths?
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Obama welcomes illegals, ignores Americans
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Obama has no intention of repatriating illegals