Rand Paul had to once again combat a mischaracterized attack on his very explicitly documented foreign policy views on foreign policy. I urge you to look up his views by his own words. The most recent attack is from Governor Rick Perry. Perry amazingly found time among all the chaos on the border to critique Paul and paint him as a dangerous isolationist. Perry wants us to believe that Paul doesn't care about threats overseas. The specific threat Perry discussed was the recent attacks and land grabbing by ISIS in Iraq. Perry obviously is gearing up for a run for president in 2016 by making time to falsely portray Paul's views. According to Perry and so many other Republican War Hawks, an "isolationist" is someone who refuses to support giving funds and weapons to radical Islamist rebel groups and other Nations that hate America. An "isolationist" also opposes sending our troops willy-nilly into foreign countries without congressional approval with a clear purpose, a plan to win, and a clear exit strategy in place. But I digress. Here's an excerpt from the article and the link to the article. I urge you to read the entire article. It's too good and too important not to. This is what the GOP is at odds with going into the 2016 election. Paul's position is stronger and more popular among many in the party and many Americans across the country. This makes Perry mad.
I also want to stop sending U.S. aid and arms to Islamic rebels in Syria who are allied with ISIS, something Perry doesn't even address. I would argue that if anything, my ideas for this crisis are both stronger, and not rooted simply in bluster.
If the governor continues to insist that these proposals mean I’m somehow “ignoring ISIS,” I’ll make it my personal policy to ignore Rick Perry’s opinions.
But the governor and I do have at least one major foreign policy difference, something Perry also conveniently fails to mention.
Said Perry forthrightly during a Republican presidential primary debate in 2012, “I would send troops back into Iraq.” Obviously, this is something he advocated long before the rise of ISIS. At the time, Perry urged the United States to return troops to Iraq to act as a balance against Iran, a country my colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham says we must work with to help beat back the extremists.
Does Perry now believe that we should send U.S. troops back into Iraq to fight the Iranians—or to help Iran fight ISIS? As everyone agrees, governor, there are no easy options.
Unlike Perry, I oppose sending American troops back into Iraq. After a decade of the United States training the Iraq’s military, when confronted by the enemy, the Iraqis dropped their weapons, shed their uniforms and hid. Our soldiers’ hard work and sacrifice should be worth more than that. Our military is too good for that.
I ask Governor Perry: How many Americans should send their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country — a nation the Iraqis won’t defend for themselves? How many Texan mothers and fathers will Governor Perry ask to send their children to fight in Iraq?
I will not hold my breath for an answer. If refusing to send Americans to die for a country that refuses to defend itself makes one an “isolationist,” then perhaps its time we finally retire that pejorative.
Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want to send U.S. soldiers back into Iraq. Is Perry calling the entire country “isolationist” too?
The let’s-intervene-and-consider-the-consequences-later crowd left us with more than 4,000 Americans dead, over 2 million refugees and over trillions of dollars in debt. Anytime someone advocates sending our sons and daughters to war, questions about precise objectives, effective methods and an exit strategy must be thoughtfully answered. America deserves this. Our military certainly deserves this.
