I’d like to support Rand Paul, but he sure makes it hard. First, he defended Social Security – an abomination in the eyes of any liberty-minded person. Now, he appears to be egging on another military jihad – this one in Syria.
His objection isn’t that the Obama Administration is meddling in the Syrian civil war (or whatever it is). It’s that Obama’s not pursuing “victory” rabidly enough:
Speaking at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Kentucky, Paul said:
“Last week I was told by the administration, you know what their goal is in Syria? To fight to a stalemate. . . I’ve told them I’m not sending my kids or your kids or any American soldiers to fight for stalemate. When we fight, we fight to win, we fight for American principles, we fight for the American flag and we come home after we win.”
Could he be anymore of a Republican? Or a panderer to Republicans?
How about coming out against the idea of any military involvement in the affairs of other countries? That the sole legitimate use of military force is in defense of the U.S. proper – something that hasn’t been necessary since at least 1941 and arguably, not since 1812.
Oh. Yes. Quite so. That would be a Libertarian position.
Can’t have that. The flag-humping, Bible-clutching onagers who bray about “our freedoms” at Veterans of Foreign Wars National Conventions would never stand for it.
Which is why Rand Paul won’t take a stand against it.