Libertarianism Is Incoherent Foreign Policy, 'Bush Doctrine" Little Better

Breitbart ^ | 3 Sep 2014, 2:36 PM PDT | Mike Flynn

[SoConPubbie]

On Wednesday, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul seemed to reverse course on the crisis in the Middle East, calling now for the military destruction of the Islamic State (ISIS) terrorist organization. In recent weeks, Paul has vacillated between downplaying the threat of ISIS to ruminating that previous US action was somehow responsible for the group's rise. Christian Whiton rightly takes Paul to task for this, but, in his critique, suggests that more robust intervention by the US in the Syrian civil war would have blocked ISIS. The two arguments are flip sides of the same flawed coin. 

Both Paul and Whiton overstate the consequences of US actions in Syria for the rise of ISIS. Paul argues there was too much intervention, Whiton argues not enough, or, at best, not enough to the right people. Has the US armed the "moderate" opposition to Assad, Whiton implies, the rise of ISIS would have been checked. The Islamic State was not checked, however, by an Iraqi army showered with billions of dollars of US military aid and years of expert training. It is unlikely that the supposedly moderate "Free Syrian Army," made up of "farmers and dentists," would have fared any better. 

Three years ago, Whiton argued for a more robust US intervention in the Libyan civil war. He noted that in the fight against Qaddafi, "[t]he Libyan rebels are doing remarkably well politically and militarily. The cities they control have been governed justly and show they are not inclined toward Islamist-style tyranny." The US did coordinate with the Libyan rebels and launch airstrikes against Qaddafi, amid the cheering of Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, but not with the long-term results one would have hoped for. The blood of three diplomatic personnel stains the sand in Benghazi. Today, our vacant embassy in Tripoli

[SoConPubbie]

	"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton "We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan "A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792 "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

[griswold3]

Without context how can anyone make good decisions? Recently, I joined a discussion of college students on Iraq. When I explained our history with Iraq especially the ‘no fly zone’ (how could we leave the middle east after 9/11 with Saddam Hussein in power and the Town Hall Meeting in Columbus Ohio Feb 1998 with Albright, Berger and Cohen, etc.) they were blank. It’s as if history started yesterday.

[JimSEA]

In both Libya and Syria the Brotherhood allowed enough secular idealists to be cannon fodder until they served their purpose of securing arms and support. This worked well in Egypt until the rank and file saw just what life under the Brotherhood would be like and they switched just enough support to the Army.

It’s a truism that the worse a dictator is, the more difficult forming a good government after an overthrow. Haiti is the classic example. Throw strong, well lead Islamists into the mix and you’ve got today’s Middle East.

Obama made either the wrong or an incomplete move at every turn. A President hasn’t the time to dither and dithering is Obama’s trademark.

[NoLibZone]

Young people feel history began when they became aware of it.

[NoLibZone]

The libertarian foreign policy is the Obama foreign policy.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

This is probably the most reasonable essay I've read regarding the troubles in the Middle East.

What he is basically advocating is the "tit for tat" policy that Israel uses against its aggressors.

Israel doesn't stand by and do nothing, nor do they proclaim a war against all their enemies. Instead they attempt negotiations and inflict severe pain whenever pain is inflicted on them.

Since it would have been a political non-starter to establish a benevolent dictatorship in Iraq after its conquest, we should have stuck to the no-fly zones approach and just dropped more bombs in more places whenever Saddam or his evil sons did anything we found distasteful.

The same goes for ISIS, Syria, Lybia, Iran, North Korea, etc.