Rand Paul makes the most obviously true statement about ISIS and Saddam Hussein, but it is one that other Republicans are running from.
CNS News reports, “Sen. Rand Paul: ‘ISIS Is More of an Aberration’ Than Saddam Hussein.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that the threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is “more of an aberration” than Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was.
“I would say that I think that we are more at risk for attack from people who are training, organizing, and fighting in Iraq than we were before. So, for example, I.S.I.S. is—more of an aberration than even Hussein was. So you have this radical brand of jihad, this radical brand of Islam, that is now strong and growing stronger because of sort of the failed state that Iraq is,” Paul said.
“You have the same thing going on in Libya. So this is a valid debate, and we’re gonna have to have this debate, not only in the Republican primary but in the general, as to whether or not it’s a good idea. Is intervention always a good idea? Or sometimes does it lead to unintended consequences?” he added.
If Rand Paul is open to invading Iraq again in order to deal with the threat of ISIS, I disagree with him. But I suspect that is not his agenda. He is pointing out that it is more reasonable to discuss the option with ISIS than it ever was with Saddam Hussein because ISIS is clearly more of a threat.
For that reason, Paul’s statements are going to be hard for Republicans to ignore. He is asking for a discussion about ISIS, allowing people to make a case for intervening, by pointing out that they are clearly more dangerous than the reason we went to war in 2003. Furthermore, the only reason that Iraq is a “failed state” is that we invaded. Paul didn’t spell that out originally, but Chuck Todd asked another question that made it clear.
“Do you believe the world would be a better place if Saddam Hussein were still the strongman in Iraq?” Todd asked Paul.
“I don’t think that’s exactly how I’d put it,” said Paul, adding that “We are more at risk for attack from people who are training, organizing, and fighting in Iraq than we were before.”
I will put it exactly that way if anyone cares. We would be immensely better off. There would be no ISIS. Iran would not be nearly as much a regional influence if the secular dictatorship was still in power in Iraq (which we transformed into a Shiite ally to Iran). And Christians would still be living in peace in Iraq rather than being abandoned to die by the U.S. State Department.
As Rand Paul asked rhetorically: “Is it a good idea to topple secular dictators? And what happens when we do?” In the Middle East, nothing good happens as a result.
One of the best moves Rand Paul made was pointing out that Hillary was just as entangled in these issues as anyone who wanted to associate his name with that of George Bush. Her hand in the invasion of Libya was another terrorist stimulus program.