We don’t always support the Senator when it comes to opinions of foreign relations, but in the case of Syria, Rand Paul has it spot on. The funny part is that The New Republic is using his statements as an opportunity to bash him.
The bottom line is this – he mentioned “Syrian Christians” and put an emphasis on them. That’s a no-no in the eyes of liberal writers like Julia Ioffe. She would rather support the war-mongering that she would normally oppose if it wasn’t Obama doing it rather than admit that for the safety of the United States and our ally in the Middle East, Israel, it is better to keep the Christians in Syria safe. Does that mean that Paul or anyone else is promoting the concept of killing others? Of course not.
The only problem is that it seems it’s all he’s talking about. Aside from his standard non-interventionist caution, and the how-do-we-really-know-anything-about-anything epistemological exercises of the kind we saw in his confrontation with Kerry, the paramount concern for Rand Paul, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is not the question of chemical weapon use, or the 100,000 dead, but the Christians.
Ms Ioffe, it is a concern. The fact that you don’t see it isn’t a reason to bash Paul. He gets enough bashing when he’s wrong. Why bash him when he’s right? This isn’t a math equation. It’s about maintaining the proper stability in a region whose explosion will cripple this country and the whole world. Assad may or may not be the lesser of two evils in this case, but that’s not the issue. He hasn’t caused much trouble outside of his own country. That’s a good thing.
Paul’s concerns are real. The rebels seem to be more anti-Christian, anti-American, and anti-Israel than Assad. They only thing that keeps them focused on their task at hand is because above all else, they’re anti-Assad.