Sen. Rand Paul Reiterates: Less Intervention Doesn’t Mean No Intervention, Ever

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has definitely heard the
criticism coming from some libertarians over his support of
military action to fight ISIS, even as he is attempting to stand
strong against more aggressive responses and the call to arm and
train other Syrian rebels. That was the message from Paul when he
stopped by Reason’s Los Angeles office today briefly during a swing
through the city.

Paul’s response to the criticism is to make it clear that he’s a
guy for less foreign intervention, not none, even though it puts
him at odds with his father, Ron Paul. His remarks were short and
generally reiterated points he made earlier this week in an
interview with Nick Gillespie (read
here) and from his 45-minute Senate floor speech yesterday
opposing funding for arms and training for Syrian rebels (read
here).

He said that his call for a certain level of intervention
against ISIS through military strikes is a direct result of
intervention that he doesn’t support, toppling secular foreign
leaders, even if they are dictators. Doing so creates the kind of
chaos in the Middle East that allows groups like ISIS to thrive.
Those comments were how he opened his Senate speech yesterday as
well.

It’s also clear that he’s got Hillary Clinton in mind. As with
his comments with Gillespie, he noted that criticizing Clinton’s
failure to protect the consulate in Benghazi comes then with a
responsibility to protect diplomatic missions in foreign counties,
and that calls for military presence. The difference, though, Rand
explained, is making that important decision whether to have a
diplomatic presence at all in certain extremely troubled
countries.

And, in accordance with his previous comments, he remains
steadfast that President Barack Obama (or any president) must get
permission from Congress to wage war and lamented that
Congressional leaders did not want to force the matter. “If this
were a Republican president you would hear some squawking,” he said
and added that the legislative branch had been allowing the
executive branch to claim more and more power for itself for the
past 100 years.

Jacob Sullum critiqued Paul’s Senate speech earlier today

here.