Rand Paul: we must militarily destroy the Islamic State of Iraq & Syria

[GOON]

Well, this is disappointing, but how is it a flip flop?

It is taking pot shots at a likely opponent and a current President despite having no justification based on ideology. ISIS is in no way conservative or libertarian.

Well, it's not like his "pot shots" aren't justified towards Barack and Hillary.  Had we followed their will and invaded Syria, the current situation with ISIS would be much more worse than it already is, considering that they would have had control of an actual country (Syria) by then.

[GOON]

Well, this is disappointing, but how is it a flip flop?

It is taking pot shots at a likely opponent and a current President despite having no justification based on ideology. ISIS is in no way conservative or libertarian.

Well, it's not like his "pot shots" aren't justified towards Barack and Hillary.  Had we followed their will and invaded Syria, the current situation with ISIS would be much more worse than it already is, considering that they would have had control of an actual country (Syria) by then.

Obama did not want war, and that's why it didn't happen. Also, there's a chance the IS would never have risen this far if we significantly belied the FSA take power.

He didn't want war, yet he and John Kerry were all over the talk-shows trying to convince the American public that Assad and Syria were serious threats.  In Obama's case, he even went on national television and delivered a speech in a last-ditch effort to drum up support.  When all of that failed--along with David Cameron being humiliated by parliament voting against intervention in Syria--Obama finally backed off.  If he didn't want war, he sure as hell fooled me.

Removing Assad would have created the same vacuum of power in Syria that Bush created in Iraq post-Saddam.  ISIS took advantage of that vacuum, and would have done the same had it existed in Syria.  Even if moderates did seize power Post-Assad, do you really think ISIS would just pack-up their things and go home?  We'd end up right back in Syria because of the ISIS insurgents, much like how we're about to go back to Iraq now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's absurd.  In the op-ed, Rand wasn't calling for boots on the ground, nor was he saying that we should have intervened in Syria.  He was calling for airstrikes to eliminate a group that beheaded two Americans, but even then he included the caveat of requiring congressional approval.  Even if it did come up for a vote, Rand wouldn't vote for airstrikes unless the Obama Administration could provide a legitimate long-term strategy, which is something that Bush obviously failed to think through.

On foreign policy, Rand and Bush are miles apart.

[GOON]

And I'd rather be fighting the IS with Assad already gone, and a FSA government in place.

You're assuming that ISIS wouldn't have already taken control of the Syrian government had Assad be deposed, which is something that I could definitely see happening.

Also, who is to say that a FSA government stays in power if it gained it in the first place?  Those ISIS militants aren't just going to go home.  There was a reason why they were fighting Assad, and I highly doubt it was because they supported the alleged "moderate" opposition forces.

Deposing murderous dictators sounds like a good plan until you consider the long-term ramifications of those actions.  It was over a decade later, but we're now fully seeing the effects that removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq had on the region.

[GOON]

We broke Iraq. Syria broke itself. We have no responsibility to rebuild Syria, but we could/should have helped the right side win, by coordinating air strikes with them and sharing intelligence, maybe some special forces. It would have been better than where we are now.

See, there is no "right side" in the Syrian Civil War.  The United States doesn't have an obligation to remove dictators just because they're dictators.  Assad is a dictator, and the extremists in the FSA were going to be the ones to seize power once Assad was gone.  We should have let Syria be Russia's problem, but Obama couldn't help himself. 

[GOON]

Starwatcher, what makes you think we would've been able to ensure that all of our arms shipments went to the FSA? We already tried to send them supplies and it was incredibly difficult to determine where they were going. It was very easy for these weapons to end up in the hands of jihadists due to the disorganization and inability to audit where the weapons were going.

Also, there were reports of the FSA slaughtering Christians and at this point many FSA fighters have defected to ISIS. That doesn't reflect well on the idea that we could've turned Syria into some sort of stable, secular paradise by arming ISIS.

And sometimes you just have to do the right thing.

Applying that train of thought to international relations is just begging for disaster. 

[GOON]

Starwatcher, what makes you think we would've been able to ensure that all of our arms shipments went to the FSA? We already tried to send them supplies and it was incredibly difficult to determine where they were going. It was very easy for these weapons to end up in the hands of jihadists due to the disorganization and inability to audit where the weapons were going.

Also, there were reports of the FSA slaughtering Christians and at this point many FSA fighters have defected to ISIS. That doesn't reflect well on the idea that we could've turned Syria into some sort of stable, secular paradise by arming ISIS.

i didn't say it would be paradise. I also would really limit giving then our weapons. Information sharing and coordinated air strikes are better.

So, we bomb Syrian government targets, and then the FSA automatically takes control? Or would you have us simultaneously bomb jihadist groups as they're trying to take over cities we already bombed to get rid of the government? It just would've been extremely difficult for us to defeat Assad and drive out all of the jihadist groups by bombing. If we were ever successful, it would take tons of time, money, and blood to accomplish that. We would probably end up occupying Syria to make sure the FSA stayed in control. The amount of bombing necessary would also result in tons of civilian deaths and chaos. Plus, we now know that plenty of FSA fighters have no problem fighting alongside ISIS. FSA members themselves would likely have engaged in the slaughter of religious minorities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I think we should do the wrong thing.

I mean, really, what kind of argument is that? Of course we should do what's right. The question is what that is. Sometimes, the "right" (or at least the least wrong) thing you can do is to not get involved.

Morally, the right thing would have been to overthrow Assad.  However, you can't have a foreign policy based upon doing what's morally right and running around the world overthrowing dictators because it's the "right" thing to do.  Those who argue in-support of such a warped policy need to reevaluate their views on international relations.

[GOON]

And I'd rather be fighting the IS with Assad already gone, and a FSA government in place.

Were you in favor of going into Iraq to get rid of Saddam?

Taking out Hussein wasn't the worst thing we've done

Yes it was.

[GOON]

I geniuely feel America should participate in defeating the ISIS and ISIL.

America created a mess in Iraq that helped them to surface, now America should at least help cleaning a mess.  

That's p. much how I feel about it.  Had we not intervened in Iraq, overthrew Saddam, thus creating the environment that's allowing ISIS to thrive, and ISIS still invaded, then we could just sit back and watch from a distance as to what is going on.

However, it's quite possible that Saddam--or whoever would have taken his place--would have crushed an invading ISIS, if not allow them to invade at all.  The weak Iraqi government that replaced Saddam stands no chance against a militant group that is willing to die to create their Islamic State.  The United States should destroy the monster that they helped create, both indirectly and directly (via arming them in Syria).