The Daily Beast
reported earlier today that Sen. Rand Paul has flipflopped on
his opposition to “boots on the ground” in the conflict against
ISIS. The shock headline, from Olivia Nuzzi: “Rand Paul Declares
War on ISIS—And Allows Boots on the Ground.” Egads! Has the
libertarian-leaning senator finally been unmasked as a secret
neocon?
In a word, no. But it does seem like Paul’s approach to the ISIS
conflict has grown less restrained over time—and his latest plan
deserves at least some of the criticism it has received.
Paul plans to introduce a resolution in the Senate next month
that would declare war on ISIS. Nuzzi obtained a draft of the
resolution, which states that ISIS has already declared war on the
U.S. and is a threat to American embassies and consulates in the
region.
It also authorizes the president to commit small numbers of
American ground forces “as necessary for the protection or rescue
of members of the United States Armed Forces or United States
citizens from imminent danger [posed by ISIS]… for limited
operations against high value targets,” and “as necessary for
advisory and intelligence gathering operations.”
Nuzzi bills this as a contradiction of Paul’s previous
statements on the subject. In September, he said he didn’t want
American ground forces involved in the conflict, although he would
be willing to provide logistical and intelligence support to U.S.
allies in the region: “The people on the ground fighting these
battles, going hand-to-hand with ISIS, need to be their fellow
Arabs and those who, I think and hopefully do, represent civilized
Islam,” Paul said back then, according to The Daily
Beast.
Paul’s office told Nuzzi that there isn’t really any substantive
difference between the two positions:
Doug Stafford, a senior aide to Paul, said the senator has not
flip-flopped: “He doesn’t believe we should send a bunch of troops
in to start a ground war. But he has always said we have an
obligation to defend people in the region. The declaration is
tailored to allow for this.”Stafford later added: “It has always been a given that American
troops could be required to secure the people and property of our
embassy and consulate. Senator Paul believes that boots on the
ground beyond those limited number as outlined in the declaration
should come from allies in the region, as he has previously
stated.”
Nuzzi, on the other hand, maintains that this is a big
flip-flop. Via Twitter, she
wrote: “Rand Paul in September: no boots on the ground. Rand
Paul today: sure, boots on the ground!”
Let’s look at the proposal again. It authorizes ground forces
for three reasons:
1. “as necessary for the protection or rescue of members of the
United States Armed Forces or United States citizens from imminent
danger [posed by ISIS]”
2. “for limited operations against high value targets”
3. “as necessary for advisory and intelligence gathering
operations”
Paul has always been clear on the fact that he thinks ISIS poses
an evolving threat to the American embassy in Baghdad and the
consulate in Erbil. And he was previously in support of advising
regional allies. So to my mind, 1 and 3 aren’t anything new. Paul
might have had a reputation for opposing ground troops, but in
reality, if you count defending the consulate and advising allies
as “boots on the ground,” then he was actually already in favor of
that. That stance might be wrong, but it isn’t a contradiction.
Situation 2, however, does strike me as quite different—and more
problematic—than his initial stance. It’s nice that it has the word
“limited” in it, I suppose, but there is really nothing limiting
about authorizing the use of ground troops for offensive military
operations. And it’s easy to see this rationale being used to
justify all sorts of pro-active skirmishes with ISIS.
It’s worth keeping in mind that this is just a draft of Paul’s
resolution. But if this version were approved by Congress, it would
be difficult to say that it places any kind of meaningful restraint
on the use of ground forces. I would have expected Paul to realize
that this wasn’t going to cut it, given the slippery-slope nature
of American military adventurism.
Reason’s Matt Welch interviewed Paul recently about his case for
a limited war against ISIS. Read that article
here.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1AI0NcR
via IFTTT