John Stossel: Rand Paul’s call to end America’s wars | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

John Stossel: Rand Paul’s call to end America’s wars

John Stossel
1875950_web1_1504525-4adc722ef6c847428132af20e606ad30
AP
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., pauses during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington March 5.

Four years ago, the media were talking about a “Libertarian Moment.” I had high hopes!

Sen. Rand Paul ran for president, promising to “take our country back from special interests.” But his campaign never took off. He “shouldn’t even be on the stage,” said Donald Trump at a Republican presidential debate.

Paul quit his presidential campaign after doing poorly in Iowa.

Today, Paul says, “Either the people aren’t ready or perhaps the people in the Republican primary aren’t ready.”

But he adds, “We may be winning the hearts and minds of people who aren’t in Washington.”

Really?

The current deficit is a record $984 billion, and since Trump was elected, federal spending rose half a trillion dollars.

But Paul says progress has been made, in that Trump has introduced some market competition in health care, cut taxes, cut regulations, appointed better judges and promises to get us out of foreign wars. Paul tweeted that Trump is “the first president to understand what is our national interest.”

“But he hasn’t pulled us out of anywhere,” I said.

“Compare it to George W. Bush, who got us involved everywhere,” answered Paul. “Or President Obama, who sent 100,000 troops to Afghanistan. The rhetoric of President Trump has been a relief.”

The problem, says Paul, is that, “When the president has said anything about it … immediately Republican and the Democrat leaders get together and pass a resolution saying it would be precipitous to leave Afghanistan.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did recently make a speech about “the danger of a precipitous withdrawal.”

“Really?” replies Paul. “After 19 years? Precipitous?”

America went into Afghanistan to take out the killers behind the Sept. 11 attacks. We succeeded. So why are we still there?

Paul complains, “Intervention after intervention hasn’t had the intended consequence. We’ve got more chaos.”

In Iraq, America took out Saddam Hussein, but that has left a power vacuum and continued violence.

In Libya, we helped get rid of Moammar Gadhafi, but Libya’s “government” is now run by armed gangs that torture civilians.

In Syria, we armed rebels to fight Bashar Assad. But many of our weapons ended up in the hands of al-Qaida, and Assad is still in power.

Recently, Trump moved 50 troops from northern Syria. His action received widespread condemnation from people Paul calls the “war hawk caucus.”

Lindsey Graham said it was “the most screwed-up decision I’ve seen since I’ve been in Congress.” That’s saying something; Graham has been in Congress for 24 years and has seen several screwed-up wars and failed domestic programs.

But Graham almost always seems to want more war.

We need a strong military. But we should use it sparingly, only when we know it benefits our defense.

If we go to war, Congress must vote to declare that war. That’s what the Constitution requires. Congress hasn’t done that since 1942. That’s wrong. It allows politicians to hide their deadly mistakes.

“It’s a very complicated war over there,” says Paul. “There are four or five different countries involved in it. The people who live there know better. We can’t know enough about these problems. And unless you want to put 100,000 troops in there and fight Assad, Russia, Turkey … we ought to rethink whether we should get involved in these wars to begin with.”

In both foreign and domestic policy, government plans usually fail.

John Stossel is author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.