43 votes

Rand Paul WSJ oped: How U.S. Interventionists Abetted the Rise of ISIS

Aug. 27, 2014 6:35 p.m. ET

As the murderous, terrorist Islamic State continues to threaten Iraq, the region and potentially the United States, it is vitally important that we examine how this problem arose. Any actions we take today must be informed by what we've already done in the past, and how effective our actions have been.

Shooting first and asking questions later has never been a good foreign policy. The past year has been a perfect example.

In September President Obama and many in Washington were eager for a U.S. intervention in Syria to assist the rebel groups fighting President Bashar Assad's government. Arguing against military strikes, I wrote that "Bashar Assad is clearly not an American ally. But does his ouster encourage stability in the Middle East, or would his ouster actually encourage instability?"

The administration's goal has been to degrade Assad's power, forcing him to negotiate with the rebels. But degrading Assad's military capacity also degrades his ability to fend off the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. Assad's government recently bombed the self-proclaimed capital of ISIS in Raqqa, Syria.

To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


Let's follow his lead. Replace all "war-hungry" verbiage with interventionalist. Their actions needs the further light of accurate language for the masses to hear. Excited to hear Rand debating hell-ary Clinton... it's going to be some fun stuff.

"Some even traveled to Syria

"Some even traveled to Syria from America to give moral and material support to these rebels even though there had been multiple reports some were allied with al Qaeda."

Love the jab at McCain.

Is there a way to get rid of the WSJ Subscription window

without rehgistering for the WSJ?

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world.

Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has...

John Stevens
Jacksonville Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Organizer

I am waiting for McCains Apology

I am waiting for an apology from all the Neocons to Dr. Paul for when they said Ron Paul was wrong and we need to invade everyone now.

To your point http://www.dailypaul.com/325197#comment-3476885 I am haunted by something Colin Powell said. You Broke It You Own It.

I hope you have some sudoku puzzles with you

because you'll be waiting for a very long time.

Don't fret or be haunted,

rather send the bill to Bush. He bought it, then broke it.

No to ground troops on

No to ground troops on foreign soil. This non-interventionist position fortunately enjoys majority support in the US. Best result is no more young American soldiers killed overseas. The US military is not a police force. Although the lines are very blurred and the clarity of this is hard to see, it remains to law enforcement, not military dominance, to be the effective means of suppressing these lawless bands of brainwashed extremists. If more force is needed, then the bordering nations and nearby countries, vitally and economically affected, to the rescue. The US military is not a police force. American citizenry have forgiving hearts, but not for blatant death dealing decisions to kill their enlisted and commissioned sons and daughters. Neither the military, nor the State Department is a police force. They may advocate, but can not bring justice to bear - not their jobs. Obliterating massive areas of this earth to kill lawless actors along with collateral damage is not justice. Our know-nothing Congress sets jurisdictional parameters for the enforcement of national defense. That does not include police actions. They just have not learned that yet. POTUS is a political animal,(even Rand would be) and that will not change with the next election. But national policy can change, to reflect this country's opinion: more non-intervention.


I've always thought the Obama Admin to be feckless as well...

Love the Branding: Interventionists

The Establishment incorrectly labels Rand as an "isolationist" - so I LOVE the branding work he's doing here.

BOTH sides of the aisle are Interventionists, the War Parties.
(Less, the Liberty Candidates)

"If you always lean on your master, you will never be able to proceed without him." - Jefferson to his daughter Martha. March 1787


I had been wondering about the fact that the "rebels" were supplied US arms when everyone was wanting to get involved in the Syrian war. Now, we are going to have to side with the Syrian president, to stop the ISIL behavior! Too much meddling. I agree with trying to stop a genocide. But, we should have left well enough alone, in Syria. Now, we have caused the situation to be much worse!!


Thought provoking...I love how he reminds Americans what John Kerry's and Hillary Clinton's position was last year on the Syrian issue

rand continues to get great press

And everyone is watching.....the comments on that piece are mostly positive...brietbarts piece ditto

I hope so, I just read the first few.

WSJ is usually disgustingly neocon, and its commenters usually reflect that.

That said, it was another great Op-Ed by Rand. I cannot find any faults in it.