Ive seen some libertarians pushing this around today, requisite outrage in tow. I cant help but wonder if people are reading past the clickbait headline, so lets have a discussion about whats going on. To be clear, the resolution Senator Paul has presented this week doesnt suddenly mean hes for a new ground war. Hes simply looking for a way to make current actions constitutional while also strictly limiting them. Some may feel that this resolution isnt perfect from an ideological perspective (nothing ever is in reality), but it REPEALS the Iraq and Afghanistan authorizations of force. That is a HUGE deal. After all, both have been abused to authorize tangential actions that should be voted on individually. As for troops on the ground? Senator Pauls resolution would allow a limited number to be present in defense of our embassies and consulates; which is not a departure from his previous statements. Furthermore, their presence would be limited to only a year. This means wed be moving away from the perpetual war status quo that has plagued our nation for too long. My take on this resolution is that its a huge step in the right direction. If international affairs were currently perfect, Id agree with Rands critics here. But we live in a messy world, and this proposal incrementally reins in much of the unwieldy mess our foreign policy has devolved into, while pointedly seeking to destroy ISIS.
Posted on: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:06:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015