[quote][b]Looking at the situation in Iraq, what would President Paul do?[/b] [quote]First, I think we have to understand how we got here, and then we have to decide as a country where we're going. I think there's chaos in the middle east, and I think the chaos is because we've created a vacuum. Before the Iraq war, there was some what of a stand off between Sunni Shiite, had been for maybe a 1,00 years off and on. But now we have a chaotic situation, we have a vacuum, and I think one of the reasons why ISIS has been emboldened is because we've been arming their allies. We have been allied with ISIS in Syria. They have had a safe haven because we have been arming the rebels to keep Assad away from them, and now they go back and forth, so I think our intervention in Syria has lead precisely to what's going on in Iraq.[/quote] [b]But when sitting in the oval office, you have to think what do we now? So, would a President Paul, at this moment, send US advisors and say, "go and see what we can do to the Iraqi army"? Would a President Paul say, "I might do airstrikes"?[/b] [quote]I think the first thing you'd have to do is follow the Constitution. The Constitution says that Congress decides. The President doesn't have the unilateral authority to begin war. The Reagan doctrine for how we go to war, is that you should have a consensus of the people. So there needs to be a full-throated debate. A full-throated debate in Congress, and Congress has to decide. Militarily we [i]could[/i] go back in. You know, the surge worked, obviously we have the military might and power, but the country as a whole has to decide, do we want to send a hundred thousand troops in, are we willing to have forty five hundred young Americans die to save a city like Mosul, that the Shiites won't even save, that they've fled. [/quote] [b]What does Rand Paul think at this point?[/b] [quote]No ground troops. I think that we need..[/quote] [b]I think most everybody agrees. How about airstrikes?[/b] [quote]I think we need to see what the Shiite will do to defend themselves. If the Shiites are not willing to fight for their country, it may be that their country is not going to exist.[/quote] [b]But by the time you find out how people feel about Iraq, by the time you get Congress to do anything, it's two weeks later, and ISIS is sitting in Baghdad. So, you're gonna have to move pretty quickly here.[/b] [quote]Well, there are times when a President would move quickly to dispel an imminent threat to [i]our[/i] country. Where I disagree with the President, is his theory in Libya was that there was an imminent threat to Benghazi. That's not what an imminent threat is. It's an imminent threat to [i]our[/i] country. So what I would say is, is that the Shiites were ripping their uniforms off and running, they need to stand up and fight, and could we assist them in some way? I'm not ruling that out. But I would first wait to see, are the Shiites going to fight for their country or not. [/quote] [b]So, do you believe the ISIS is a national security threat to the United States?[/b] [quote]Well, do you know where the safe haven is? The safe haven is in Syria. So those.. No, let me finish. They would not be empowered in Iraq if we weren't providing a safe haven in Syria by arming their allies. [/quote] [b]But we are where we are..[/b] [quote]We are where we are because we armed the Syrian rebels. We have been fighting alongside Al Qaeda. Fighting along side ISIS. ISIS is now emboldened in two countries. But here's the anomaly, we're with ISIS in Syria, we're on the same side of the war. So those who want to get involved to stop ISIS in Iraq, are allied with ISIS in Syria. That is the real contradiction to his whole policy. [/quote] [b]Your Republican colleagues would argue, get rid of Assad, and that would've stopped ISIS in it's tracks. [/b] [quote]But no, we've done this. Look at Libya. We went into Lybia, and we got rid of that terrible Gaddafi, and now it's a Jihadist wonderland over there, there's Jihadists everywhere. If we were to get rid of Assad, it would be a Jihadist wonderland in Syria. It's now a Jihadist wonderland in Iraq, [i]precisely[/i] because we got over involved, not because we had too little involvement, but because we had too much involvement. [/quote] [b]And where we are, can a terrorist haven.. Does a terrorist haven in Iraq, which it may be soon, threaten the national security of the U.S.?[/b] [quote]Well, it could at some point. I would say that if you were a member of ISIS, you're looking at the Shiites right in front of you on the battle field you're fighting. I don't believe that ISIS is right now, in the middle of a battle saying, "hmmm I think we're gonna send intercontinental ballistic missiles to America". So could they be a threat? yes. But what I would say is...[/quote] [b]So should we stop them now?[/b] [quote]Well, we should have not armed them. If we didn't arm them in Syria maybe they wouldn't be in Iraq. [/quote] [b]But that's the past..[/b] [quote]Well, the past was 6 months ago... The past is still the current as well, it is the present. We're still arming the radical Islamic rebels in Syria. So the homeland, they're go back and forth across the border in Syria. They go back into Syria, that is the homeland we're helping to defend for them. [/quote] [b]Well, how do you stop that? [/b] [quote]Well, let's not get involved in the Syrian civil war, and let's not be involved in the Iraq Syrian war.[/quote] [b]So we should just get out all together?[/b] [quote]No, I would say that Maliki is an ally, although here's the thing, they think they're going to create stability by pushing Maliki out in the middle of a civil war. So we push him out, and we have another power vacuum, and nobody leading the country at all. My prediction is, Maliki will stand up and the Shiites will stand up, that ISIS will not be able to take Baghdad, there will be a civil war over there, but there will be a civil war with feckless people on one side, that aren't necessarily allies of ours, that are allies of Iran, on the otherside are allies of Al Qaeda. You have to ask yourself, are you willing to send your son, am I willing to send my son, to take back a city, Mosul, that they weren't willing to defend themselves. I'm not willing to send my son into that mess. [/quote][/quote] Thoughts? I think he's spot on. And that "President Paul" has a nice ring to it.