Rand Paul: US interventionists abetted rise of ISIS

[Deus Naturae]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/rand-paul-how-u-s-interventionists-abetted-the-rise-of-isis-1409178958

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ElectionsGuy]

Totally right. Taking sides in countries with chaos is clearly not a good idea, and partly because of that we have ISIS. Right now I think the best he could do is just being skeptical of foreign invasions and immediate use of force against other countries. He clearly can't go Ron style and attack our policy for us being a target of extremist terrorism. Unfortunately, just reading the article I could see how the republican base would react to this. The Sean Hannity's of the world aren't going to like this, and those types make up a significant percentage of republican primary voters.

[Eraserhead]

Some of the Rand Paul-Hillary Clinton debates would actually be interesting. Too bad they're never going to happen.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Some of the Rand Paul-Hillary Clinton debates would actually be interesting. Too bad they're never going to happen.

To bad for neocons that it's gonna happen

[Bull Moose Base]

Some of the Rand Paul-Hillary Clinton debates would actually be interesting. Too bad they're never going to happen.

It'd be interesting to see the response of partisans whose views on the Iraq War were closer to the original ones of the opposing party's nominee, but I agree it's unlikely we'll ever see it happen.  But I do think we are fairly likely to see Hillary debating a Democrat like Sanders or Schweitzer advocating a foreign policy that's lighter on intervention. But that debate would probably be much more muddled than what people here imagine it to be; I don't think even the non-interventionist would be adamantly opposed to airstrikes against ISIS and even Hillary would say the Iraq War was a mistake.

[Beet]

Well, Rand Paul got what he wanted in 2013, and now we've got ISIS. I don't see how he can claim vindication when the path Obama followed was the path the isolationists wanted and not what Rob Ford and the interventionists wanted. They were in charge and here we are.

[Deus Naturae]

Well, Rand Paul got what he wanted in 2013, and now we've got ISIS. I don't see how he can claim vindication when the path Obama followed was the path the isolationists wanted and not what Rob Ford and the interventionists wanted. They were in charge and here we are.

We trained and armed jihadist rebels in Syria, something that Paul was strongly opposed to.

[bedstuy]

It's a huge oversimplification.  What exactly did the Obama administration do to destabilize the Assad regime in the first place?  This all came out of years and years of corruption, oppression and mismanagement by the Assad family.  This came out of the organic political movement of the Arab spring.  If we can fault one big decision, maybe you can point to the Iraq War, but Obama didn't create this situation in any meaningful way. 

Next, how did our involvement abet the rise of ISIS?  This statement:

We trained and armed jihadist rebels in Syria, something that Paul was strongly opposed to.

is certainly wrong.  The US did not arm ISIS, we sluggishly aided the FSA mostly with CIA advisors and non-lethal aid.  We also ended that program when ISIS began to truly expand and we had the concern that our aid could fall into their hands.  Some people just want to paint all the anti-Assad forces as Islamic radicals, but that's just not factual.

I think it's actually more likely that we gave ISIS a chance to fester because we didn't intervene with enough gusto at the beginning.  Obviously, politics played a huge role there with Obama's reelection creating an air of restraint in committing to any large role in brining down Assad.  But, you could make the argument that we were actually too timid as an international community and too willing to allow this disaster to continue.  If we had gotten behind the FSA with full force we might have a unified transitional government in Syria instead of the 30 years war style failed state we see right now.

This debate just reflects the provincial worldview of most Americans.  We always see America as the crucial player, either because we're intervening too much or not enough.  Here, I don't think there are any easy answers and anyone who is peddling them is not to be trusted.

[Deus Naturae]

Next, how did our involvement abet the rise of ISIS?  This statement:

We trained and armed jihadist rebels in Syria, something that Paul was strongly opposed to.

is certainly wrong.  The US did not arm ISIS, we sluggishly aided the FSA mostly with CIA advisors and non-lethal aid.  We also ended that program when ISIS began to truly expand and we had the concern that our aid could fall into their hands.  Some people just want to paint all the anti-Assad forces as Islamic radicals, but that's just not factual.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is probably some truth to this. But, when you have people like Hillary Clinton claiming that ISIS is a threat because we didn't interfere enough in Syria, you have to respond.

[bedstuy]

Next, how did our involvement abet the rise of ISIS?  This statement:

We trained and armed jihadist rebels in Syria, something that Paul was strongly opposed to.

is certainly wrong.  The US did not arm ISIS, we sluggishly aided the FSA mostly with CIA advisors and non-lethal aid.  We also ended that program when ISIS began to truly expand and we had the concern that our aid could fall into their hands.  Some people just want to paint all the anti-Assad forces as Islamic radicals, but that's just not factual.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all

Did you read that article?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yet another example of Rand Paul's willful cluelessness regarding foreign policy.

lolbertarians

[Deus Naturae]

Did you read that article?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The US facilitated weapons shipments from Gulf states to Syrian jihadists. That easily meets the definition of "armed" to me. But, if you want something more concrete, here are a few more links:

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/iraq-crisis-isis-terrorists-were-trained-by-us-2012-syria-conflict-602594
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/syrian-rebel-aid-handwritten-receipts
http://www.worthynews.com/12470-free-syrian-army-massacre-christian-village

[Deus Naturae]

Yet another example of Rand Paul's willful cluelessness regarding foreign policy.

lolbertarians

Actually, Rand Paul is a foreign policy genius. See, I can also make statements and back them up with zero reasoning or justification.

[bedstuy]

Did you read that article?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The US facilitated weapons shipments from Gulf states to Syrian jihadists. That easily meets the definition of "armed" to me. But, if you want something more concrete, here are a few more links:

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/iraq-crisis-isis-terrorists-were-trained-by-us-2012-syria-conflict-602594
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/syrian-rebel-aid-handwritten-receipts
http://www.worthynews.com/12470-free-syrian-army-massacre-christian-village

What does that mean?  And, none of those are very informative articles or really to the point.  If Saudi Arabia sends arms to ISIS, why are we responsible for that?  I don't really understand your point, nor do I think it's clear what the CIA is doing in Syria anyway.

It's sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.  If we don't arm the non-ISIS opposition, ISIS continues to rampage around.  If we arm the non-ISIS opposition, some of that aid might actually go to Islamist nuts or ISIS itself. 

[Deus Naturae]

Did you read that article?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The US facilitated weapons shipments from Gulf states to Syrian jihadists. That easily meets the definition of "armed" to me. But, if you want something more concrete, here are a few more links:

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/iraq-crisis-isis-terrorists-were-trained-by-us-2012-syria-conflict-602594
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/syrian-rebel-aid-handwritten-receipts
http://www.worthynews.com/12470-free-syrian-army-massacre-christian-village

What does that mean?  And, none of those are very informative articles or really to the point.  If Saudi Arabia sends arms to ISIS, why are we responsible for that?  I don't really understand your point.

In the sentence I quoted, "it" refers to the United States. The United States is providing support for arms shipments from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Syrian rebels. A majority of the rebels who are receiving these shipments are jihadists.

What don't you understand about the articles I linked to?

[bedstuy]

The first article talks about the US training the Free Syrian Army which is not ISIS.  And, then it says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is categorically false, so it discredits the whole article.  That false point also leads to this leap in logic that the US is supporting ISIS.  It's just a silly article with no credibility.

The third article is just strange and somewhat unrelated. 

The second article just reflects that it's difficult to verify where supplies from the US were going.  And, if I'm not mistaken, the US has ended shipments to Syria over those concerns. 

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Yet another example of Rand Paul's willful cluelessness wisdom regarding foreign policy.

lolbertarians

Much better. Our aiding the rebels against Assad was in essence aiding ISIS. We should've either stayed out of it or supported the factions that would be tolerant of the rights of Christians and other religious minorities.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Some of the Rand Paul-Hillary Clinton debates would actually be interesting. Too bad they're never going to happen.

It'd be interesting to see the response of partisans whose views on the Iraq War were closer to the original ones of the opposing party's nominee, but I agree it's unlikely we'll ever see it happen.  But I do think we are fairly likely to see Hillary debating a Democrat like Sanders or Schweitzer advocating a foreign policy that's lighter on intervention. But that debate would probably be much more muddled than what people here imagine it to be; I don't think even the non-interventionist would be adamantly opposed to airstrikes against ISIS and even Hillary would say the Iraq War was a mistake.

Rand would easily win a foreign policy debate with Hillary (she has a terrible foreign policy record, tbh).  However, she'd win the election against him even more easily

[Suburbia]

This is going to be crucial in the 2016 elections. Paul will be slammed by the Cheneys, the neocons (Jeb, Christie, etc,) and all of the potential primary rivals. He could win on isolationism, too.