My must read of the day is, "Rand Paul vs. the Real World," by James Kirchick, in the Daily Beast:
As the world reverts to its normal, chaotic state, suddenly the Paul worldview doesn’t look so appetizing—that is, when one can even discern what Paul believes. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, he essentially repeated Syrian regime propaganda by stating that it was American "interventionists" who had "abetted" the rise of the Islamic State by advocating for a firmer stand against the murderous Bashar al-Assad.
How these policymakers, far-off in Washington, can be blamed for the outcome of a policy that was never implemented, is something Paul left unsaid. In reality, Assad deliberately left ISIS alone so as to let it decimate his moderate opposition and confront the West with the very false choice—the regime or Islamic State—that non-interventionists like Paul now present as justification for American inaction. But now Paul is singing a different tune, in a switcheroo noticed by Reason magazine’s Jacob Sullum, a libertarian sympathetic to Paul.
Two days after publishing the Journal op-ed, Paul expressed doubt about whether ISIS posed a "threat" to the United States during a Q & A in Dallas. And yet, later that very evening, Paul seemed to have reversed himself, telling the Associated Press that, if he were president, he would "call a joint session of congress" and "lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."
Maybe Rand Paul has found his inner hawk. Or maybe he just has no clue what he’s talking about.
Critics of the Obama administration often contend that a key problem with the president’s foreign policy is that he sees the world how he wishes it were, rather than how it actually is.
Paul is arguably guilty of the same offense, but the "minimalist foreign policy" has hit a snag. Despite being "war weary," the public doesn’t seem to be embracing the isolationist mentality.
Recent polls have found that the majority of American’s support more involvement in the region. That’s not particularly surprising. More people are aware of the beheading of James Foley than any other news in the last five years, and they see countless problems sprouting up all over the world.
Paul’s policy is less and less inline with public thinking, but instead of articulating a clear vision in support of his minimalist beliefs Paul has become incoherent. Matt Welch, at Reason, pointed it out as a tendency to be "maddeningly slippery on specific defense/intervention questions."
Whether you want to call it "slippery" or something else, Paul’s views are increasingly convoluted and unclear.
By going from such an outspoken proponent of the "less is more" foreign policy to something so indecisive, Paul seems like someone who never really knew what he was talking about.