Last week, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who is widely considered to be mulling a presidential run, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal stating the policies of so-called "interventionists" such as Hillary Clinton in Syria have "abetted ISIS." In that piece Paul outlined his support for a far more cautious foreign policy:
A more realistic foreign policy would recognize that there are evil people and tyrannical regimes in this world, but also that America cannot police or solve every problem across the globe. [The Wall Street Journal]
On Friday, Paul told The Associated Press in an email that he was in favor of robust military force when it came to ISIS:
Article continues belowThe Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily. [AP]
That position is well beyond Obama's limited interventions against ISIS, which have so far amounted to humanitarian aid for those displaced by ISIS' advances, as well as airstrikes and other support for Kurdish and Iraqi government fighters on the ground.
Paul's father, the former presidential candidate Ron Paul, remains steadfastly against military intervention of any kind, arguing: "I think the sooner we get out of there, the better. I think the policy we should follow is one designed to allow the Iraqis to solve all their problems and stay out of this and let them deal with it because we tried for a long time."