Mediaboss Marketing

Seeking to shed an isolationist label that some have tried to stick on him, Sen. Rand Paul on Thursday called for an American foreign policy agenda he touted as conservative realism that falls in between hawkish interventionism and disengagement from the rest of the world.

Americans want strength and leadership, but that doesnt mean they see war as the only solution, Mr. Paul said in prepared remarks. America shouldnt fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate. America shouldnt fight wars when there is no plan for victory. America shouldnt fight wars that arent authorized by the American people, by Congress.

America should and will fight wars when the consequences intended and unintended are worth the sacrifice, the Kentucky Republican continued.

Mr. Paul, who spoke in New York at the Center for the National Interest, said in his remarks that the war on terror is not over and America cannot disengage from the world.

To defend our country, we must understand that a hatred of our values exists, and acknowledge that interventions in foreign countries may well exacerbate this hatred, but that ultimately, we must be willing and able to defend our country and our interests, he said.

Some anger is blowback, but some anger originates in an aberrant and intolerant distortion of religion that wages war against all infidels, the potential 2016 GOP presidential contender said. Yes, we need a hammer ready, but not every civil war is a nail. There is a time to eliminate our enemies, but there is also a time to cultivate allies and encouragers among civilized Muslim nations.

We cant retreat from the world, but we cant remake it in our own image either, he continued. We cant and shouldnt engage in nation building, but we can facilitate trade and extend the blessings of freedom and free markets around the world.

Driving principles for his common-sense conservative realism include the notions that indispensable force is and always has been an indispensable part of defending the country, Congress must authorize the decision to intervene, and peace and security require a commitment to diplomacy and leadership.

He reiterated his support for the war in Afghanistan in 2001 in response to 9/11 but said that stalemate and perpetual policing seems to be the countrys mission now in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

He also made clear that he supports a strategy of airstrikes to dismantle the Islamic State terrorist group, but said he doubts a decisive victory is possible in the short term and that ultimately only the people of the region can destroy the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

Read more from the original source:
Rand Paul calls for foreign policy of 'conservative realism'

Ebola "Incredibly Contagious" - Dr. Rand Paul
Dr. Rand Paul says that Ebola must be incredibly contagious if it is being contracted by people who are taking every precaution to avoid it. God #39;s Simple Pla...

By: Raider InKC

Continue reading here:
Ebola "Incredibly Contagious" - Dr. Rand Paul - Video

Rand Paul on cover of TIME: #39;The Most Interesting Man in American Politics #39;
Original Posted By: bxtidre7 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrDll-6mx6qwIjdGAzc3UAA Morning Joe on MSNBC - 10/16/14 TIME Magazine: Rand Paul is the most in...

By: compelled2283

Follow this link:
Rand Paul on cover of TIME: 'The Most Interesting Man in American Politics' - Video

Eric Schmidt, Rand Paul, John Doerr, and Bob Woodward on Technology and Politics
Tech giants, a senator, and a journalist discuss potential advancements in public life at Vanity Fair #39;s New Establishment Summit. Watch Vanity Fair on The Scene: http://thescene.com Subscribe...

By: Vanity Fair

Read the original:
Eric Schmidt, Rand Paul, John Doerr, and Bob Woodward on Technology and Politics - Video

In a speech touting "conservative realism," the Kentucky Republican probed the failures of post-9/11 foreign policy, including too much war.

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

"Americans yearn for leadership and for strength," Senator Rand Paul planned to declare in a foreign policy speech Thursday evening, "but they don't yearn for war."

His remarks (quoted as prepared for delivery at New York City gathering of the Center for the National Interest), were seemingly pitched to Republican voters: the Kentucky Republican dubbed his approach "conservative realism," criticized President Obama and Hillary Clinton, and invoked Presidents Reagan and Eisenhower. But the substance of his speech seems likely to appeal to anyone who believes that U.S. foreign policy has gone astray since 9/11, due largely to imprudent interventions urged by George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Big parts of his message should appeal to constituencies as diverse as Code Pink and my Orange County-conservative grandparents. "After the tragedies of Iraq and Libya, Americans are right to expect more from their country when we go to war," Paul stated. "America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate. America shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory."

He condemned wars waged without the consent of Congress or the people. adding: "Until we develop the ability to distinguish, as George Kennan put it, between vital interests and more peripheral interests, we will continue to drift from crisis to crisis." But he also took care to preempt the charge that he's an "isolationist."

In passages that may alienate some of his father's supporters, Paul expressed his support for the invasion of Afghanistan (if not the decade-plus occupation that followed), declared that "the war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the world," and reiterated his support for airstrikes to weaken ISIS. He opposes funneling arms to rebels in Syria, arguing that they often end up in enemy hands. But even his support for airstrikes is arguably at odds with the principles he laid out elsewhere. "Although I support the call for defeating and destroying ISIS," the speech said, "I doubt that a decisive victory is possible in the short term, even with the participation of the Kurds, the Iraqi government, and other moderate Arab states." What happened to, "America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate. America shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory"?

The uncharitable interpretation of this tension is that, slowly but surely, Paul is going the way of Obama and succumbing to Beltway interventionism, whether as a response to D.C. culture or a gambit to win a GOP primary. The more charitable interpretation: He isn't ideologically committed to either interventionism or noninterventionism, but is simply less hawkish than Bush, Obama, or Clinton.

Either way, his rhetoric laid out an approach to foreign policy that is less bad than anything on offer from any other plausible party leader in Washington, D.C. It retains some of the idealism that candidate Barack Obama won with in 2012. "To contain and ultimately defeat radical Islam," Paul argued, "America must have confidence in our constitutional republic, our leadership, and our values."

In another passage, Paul tried to make a point sensitive and complicated enough that few American politicians even attempt it: that Americans should be wary of a foreign policy that produces blowback; that it cannot always be avoided; that anger at actions like needlessly killing innocents in drone strikes creates anti-American terrorists; and that there are other, more complicated causes of terrorism too:

We must understand that a hatred of our values exists, and acknowledge that interventions in foreign countries may well exacerbate this hatred," he says, "but that ultimately, we must be willing and able to defend our country and our interests. As Reagan said: When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. Will they hate us less if we are less present? Perhaps . but hatred for those outside the circle of "accepted" Islam, be it the Shia or Sunni or other religions, such as Christianity, exists above and beyond our history of intervention overseas.

Go here to see the original:
Rand Paul Sketches an Alternative to Hawks Like Bush and Clinton