Monday, June 23, 2014

Rand Paul on the President Sending Military Advisors to Iraq

While mainstream media appears to be playing up the fact that Rand is against sending US military to fight in Iraq, I believe the more telling point Rand made on Meet the Press with regard to the Empire is when he said this:
I don’t question the 300 advisors for this reason – I’m not sure exactly where they’re going or what they’re doing. I do think that we have an embassy there and we’ve got 3,000, 2,000 people there, that yes, we have to defend our embassy. So, I’m not gonna nitpick the president and say “Oh, you shouldn’t send in a certain amount of advisors.” And the military decisions are protecting the embassy and, to me, are very important. I’ve been talking a lot about Benghazi and how we didn’t protect them. So, I’m not gonna get involved and criticize the president for trying to protect our embassy there.
The non-interventionsit foreign policy view would be that the U.S. should pull out of foreign entanglements,draw down the embassy staff of thousands in Iraq and certainly not introduce "advisers."

Rand is, in other words, in favor of not sending troops into Iraq, which Obama isn't going to do anyway, but he is not going to question the moves of the President which are only consistent with maintaining the Empire's influence. This is not a man heeding George Washigton's advice to stay out of foreign entanglements.

With regard to Benghazi, Rand discussed why security wasn't beefed up rather than questioning why the US had an outpost in Benghazi in the first place:
 I think if you want to be Commander-in-Chief the bar you have to cross is will you defend the country- will you provide adequate security- and that’s why Benghazi is not a political question for me. To me it’s not the talking points- that’s never been the most important part of Benghazi- it’s the six months leading up to Benghazi where there were multiple requests for more security- and it never came. This was under Hillary Clinton’s watch. She will have to overcome that- and we will make her answer for Benghazi...She will have to explain how she can be commander and chief when she was not responsive to multiple requests for more security in the six months leading up...American people want a commander in chief that will send reinforcements, that will defend the country, and that will provide the adequate security. And I think in the moment of need – a long moment, a six-month moment – she wasn’t there.
How is sending reinforcements to Benghazi defending the country? The correct view is to get US personnel out of Benghazi. Rand just doesn't get to the essence of what the Empire is about, that is, it is about foreign meddling that the U.S. should not be doing in any fashion. Rand's proposed methods of meddling may be less aggressive, but he provides no indication that he is against the meddling.

Here's a much better take on Iraq and what the U.S should do. It comes from Ron Paul:
Because of the government’s foolish policy of foreign interventionism, the US is faced with two equally stupid choices: either pour in resources to prop up an Iraqi government that is a close ally with Iran, or throw our support in with al-Qaida in Iraq (as we have done in Syria). I say we must follow a third choice: ally with the American people and spend not one more dollar or one more life attempting to re-make the Middle East. Haven’t we have already done enough damage?


No comments:

Post a Comment