7 votes

The American Conservative: Rand Paul’s Unnecessary Israeli Security Guarantee

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/rand-pauls-un...

...In fact, Sen. Paul went a little beyond that and said that the U.S. should publicly “announce to the world” that an attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the United States. There are several things wrong with this idea. First, it isn’t a true reflection of what U.S. policy has been and what it presumably will be in the future. The U.S. has no formal defense obligation to Israel, and attacks on Israel have never been treated as attacks on the United States. Especially because of the strains on our military and our current fiscal woes, it doesn’t make any sense for the U.S. to extend yet another security guarantee to a prospering client state that can already provide for its own defense. The U.S. needs to reduce allied and client dependency on the U.S. We certainly shouldn’t be adding any new security guarantees.

More to the point, making this announcement would be unnecessary. Israel has the most powerful military in the region, and it possesses its own nuclear deterrent. No state that would be deterred by such an announcement is going to launch an attack on Israel, because it is already deterred from doing so by Israel’s military arsenal. Those militias and groups that are still willing to launch strikes on Israel would still be willing to do so after such an announcement. The only things that this announcement would achieve would be to link the U.S. even more closely with Israel in the eyes of the world and potentially to make Americans targets of these groups.

If the U.S. made such an announcement and followed through on it the next time there is a conflict between Israel and Hizbullah, for example, the U.S. would be committing itself to involvement in a conflict in Lebanon that serves no discernible U.S. interest. If the U.S. makes the announcement and then doesn’t honor the guarantee being made, other U.S. security guarantees that may be necessary elsewhere in the world could be undermined. The worst-case scenario is that providing such a guarantee to Israel could make a future Israeli government more aggressive in its behavior towards one of its neighbors, and that could end up pulling the U.S. into a war that it wasn’t seeking and shouldn’t be fighting.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

i like how people are so used to treating presidents like kings

that they all forget war power resides with congress.. which is what rand is working to restore.. which is why he is kind of playing a game here because by the time a decision has to be made, it will be up to the congress

Dictators

Is closer to the mark. Even kings had to deal with hostile aristocracies. Even kings had some check on their power.

Cyril's picture

Let us unite, not divide. BUT, I have no clue what Rand

Let us unite, not divide. BUT, I have no clue what Rand was talking about, now.

I'm just quoting what can be found in the U.S. Constitution:

"ARTICLE II

[...]

Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

...

I AM ASKING GENUINELY:

Wouldn't it be the time, TODAY, for our Senators and Congressmen TO START GIVING SERIOUS THOUGHTS TO THESE LINES ABOVE, BY NOW ?

THEY MEAN SOMETHING. THEY ARE STILL IN THERE, IN THE TEXT, dear People.

HAVE WE forgotten WHAT they mean?

...

Thus:

I am sorry for the Israeli people if they have warmongers in their government creating resent or hate against them, from all around them, at their neighbors'.

Are The United States of America RESPONSIBLE for that?

Is FRANCE?

Is ITALY?

Is POLAND?

Is LUXEMBOURG?

Is MONACO?

Are THE CAIMAN ISLANDS?

ARE YOU?

AM I?

...

FURTHER...

Just as I am sorry for *us*, here, in America, with a government and Congress TREADING ON the texts that this country was founded upon, WITH ALWAYS MORE MUD -OR SHOULD I SAY, FILTH- PILING UP ON THEM, BY THE MINUTE.

So... stated things like "... that the U.S. should publicly “announce to the world” that an attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the United States..."

make no sense to me whatsoever. Refer to previous Constitution quote, above.

"an attack on Israel" ...

Seriously.

Really ???

Then, what about:

"an attack on Germany",
"an attack on France",
"an attack on Italy",
"an attack on Spain",

...

"an attack on LAOS",
"an attack on CUBA",
"an attack on NORTH KOREA",
"an attack on CHINA" ?

...

I SWEAR ...

I DID NOT KNOW that "the United States of America" was the new name for:

"THE UNITED NATIONS"

???!!!

Bottom lines of my point:

Isn't THE EXECUTIVE POWER ***OF THIS COUNTRY*** QUESTIONABLE ENOUGH, BY NOW?

HOW MUCH ***MORE OF IT***, will it take before our "representatives", START CARING AGAIN ABOUT THE WORDS PUT IN THE FOUNDING TEXTS OF THIS COUNTRY?

Just... HOW MUCH?

WHERE IS IT WRITTEN in the U.S. Constitution that ANY specific country ought to be reserved ANY special treatment WITHOUT THE PEOPLE having ANY word to say about it ?

yet, ISN'T IT WHAT IS PRECISELY, EXACTLY, ACTUALLY, ***CURRENTLY***, HAPPENING

Obama gives $70 billions to Israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB3oJG2n52g

S. 2165 : United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/...

???

Please, someone, anyone, point me out to what I missed.

Because I MUST HAVE missed something.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

ytc's picture

Lyslandad, I like your BUT.

;-)

That doesn't make any sense.

When Nixon supplied Israel with weapons in 1973, the ragheaded oil barons made Americans suffer at the pumps in retaliation. We don't have any business getting tangled up in any potential skirmishes between Israel and its backwards neighbors. I'm assuming Rand is saying an attack on Israel - as in an all-out attempted invasion of Israel and not something as petty as militia warfare. Either way, it makes no sense. I hope Rand's just pandering.

Rand knows no one is going to attack Israel

That's why he said it. It was an empty declaration to shut down the repugnant Israel-firsters in our government and media.

Why is that so hard for some people to see????

.

Im not sure if thats why he said it, but I find it very odd that THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE is now coming out against Rand saying he has OVER STATED his support of Israel, when they have been Israel firsters since their inception!lol What does that say?

Regardless, I posted a comment on their site saying the same thing and it wasnt posted!
Now thats PROOF! My name had "tea party" included in it also.
Many view the tea party as a threat, which I guess to liberals, liberal water carriers and neoconservatives it would be.
Rand, like Reagan~ will not need liberals and neocons to win anything and will not seek their support.
He needs the heartbeat of America and just like Reagan- will get it, and is as we speak. Like all GREAT politicians, Rand sets the pins up perfectly(like with Clinton the other day)- THEN knocks a few down on purpose- to keep certain factions away. Rand is smart and has his ear glued to his fathers voice, and always has. Rand has learned from his fathers mistakes! OR WERE THEY MISTAKES???!!!!

"Some do not see", oh they SEE!lol
You'd better believe they see.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Michael Nystrom's picture

Wow, on top of everything else, he's omniscient, too?

Incredible! How did you find out about his powers of omniscience? Why - that isn't even human. He's beyond human!

Next are you're going to tell me is that his sh*t doesn't stink?

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

No, it's just plain common sense.

Who’s going to attack Israel and their 300 nuclear weapons? Iran? Iran hasn’t attacked anyone in over 100 years. Iraq? Lebanon? Egypt? Not a chance! They may be a little crazy over there in the Middle East, but I doubt they’re prepared to commit national suicide.

Besides, if anyone was going to attack Israel, don’t you think they would have done so already especially given the numerous horrendous inhuman attacks committed by Israel against the Palestinian people?

Logical fallacies

If the amount of weapons a country has is reason enough for others countries not to attack it, then how do you explain WWI & WWII?

Btw, Iran has the support Russia and China which obviously outmatch Israel in all forms of weaponry.

All it takes is one stupid move. Besides, if you believe in Christian prophecy, "WWIII" is inevitable.

If there is a WWIII

It'll be Israel that starts it.

And....

That information is based on...what?

Hunches and guesses?

huh?

it wouldn't be the first time they were attacked.

Palestinian rockets,

which are usually provoked by Israel in order to justify an attack on Gaza, don’t count.

b

ump...