Rand Paul has a Bold Decisive Plan to do the Same Thing in Iraq

Rand Paul, Kelley Ashby

Rand Paul has many strong and bold positions on Iraq. He was decisively against air strikes in Iraq. Now he’s boldly for them.

He was boldly admitting that he had the same policy in Iraq as Obama. Now he has a bold new policy that is just the same as Obama.

But it’s bold and decisive.

“If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS,” Rand Paul says.

Okay I’ll bite. What would you do?

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.

Okay, aside from calling Congress back to approve your strong decisive plan… what is your plan?

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 skillful diplomacy to protect our national interests.

So what’s this policy and strategy?

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.

Is there a point to any of this?

There’s no point in taking military action just for the sake of it, something Washington leaders can’t seem to understand.

There’s no point in just talking for the sake of it.

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.

So how does this differ from what Obama is doing?

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

So how does this differ from what Obama is doing?

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.

That’s a great point. Unfortunately Rand Paul supports amnesty. So once again, how does this differ from Obama?

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

That’s a good idea. It seems to be the only one though.

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.

See Obama. We’re doing this already.

Here’s what Paul wrote not all that long ago.

“In fact, some of Perry’s solutions for the current chaos in Iraq aren’t much different from what I’ve proposed, something he fails to mention. His solutions also aren’t much different from President Barack Obama’s, something he also fails to mention. Because interestingly enough, there aren’t that many good choices right now in dealing with this situation in Iraq.

Perry says there are no good options. I’ve said the same thing. President Obama has said the same thing.

He writes in the Washington Post, “the president can and must do more with our military and intelligence communities to help cripple the Islamic State. Meaningful assistance can include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sharing and airstrikes.”

The United States is actually doing all of this now. President Obama has said he might use airstrikes in the future. I have also been open to the same option if it makes sense.”

So Rand Paul originally admitted that he had no other strategy than the one Obama had. Now he’s trying to pass that off as a bold and decisive strategy.

True to form, Rand Paul tries to dress up his own obsession with the War Powers Act as a strategy for fighting Al Qaeda. That’s process and it may or may not be a valid point, but it’s not the issue here.

If Rand Paul wants to promote how he would have outdone Obama, he actually needs to deliver the goods. And he doesn’t.

  • Crassus

    Good old Dandy. He’s changed positions more than Kim Kardashian in a brothel.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    He said he has “a plan for victory.” A quaint word! It used to mean something. After decades of self-esteem grading I suspect everything is a victory. Can’t call anyone a loser!

  • De Doc

    Consulting congress is a good idea though. That way we, the voters, can see which rats are still clueless about the danger IS presents and take that info to the polls. I’m sure that’s the primary reason why the Big O won’t go to congress now, since he doesn’t want to expose his fellow democrats to even more disaster in the upcoming election.

  • Erudite Mavin

    It appears Obama and Rand Paul are having a contest on how many views you can change in one day and revert back at another time for the sake of expediency.

    Rand Paul is already being exposed for the opportunist that he is and will not
    be able to keep it up through a national campaign.

    Rand is a typical libertarian isolationist and insults adults with his pretending to be a Conservative Republican.