Rand Paul: ‘Bombing Assad Means the U.S. is Fighting on the Same Side as ISIS’ [VIDEO]

Bush, Obama, and Trump campaigned on a relatively ‘anti-war,’ conservative foreign policy, and spoke out against nation-building. It’s now evident that Trump is just like his predecessors. Trump was so adamant just four years ago that then-President Obama not take military action in Syria, even under the same circumstances as today – their alleged use of chemical weapons. Obama didn’t take military action. Directly anyway.

The Obama administration – probably the CIA – provided covert support to terrorist factions in the region with the goal of deposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (either by direct confrontation or by causing so much havoc that he’s forced to step down), without the need for an all-out public war. Whoever was really behind the chemical attacks then were not successful in bringing the U.S. into war in Syria, but supporting the Free Syrian Army (FSA), ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and others, seemed to be sufficient at the moment.

But alas, Assad is still there. So whoever was behind the chemical attacks a few years ago, tried again, this time hoping to draw the U.S. into a war. It worked. Trump took the bait, and he took it quickly.

It remains to be seen whether our military response will have any effect on Assad, or if it will only harden his resolve.

Trending: Every Natural Right Protected in the Bill of Rights Is a Property Right? Here’s Why

Some things are certain though. This was an unconstitutional action on the part of the White House. The President does not have the authority to launch a military strike like this without a declaration of war from Congress. The exception would be in the case of an imminent attack. But that was not the case here. There were allegedly chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and the U.S. – political and media establishments – quickly assumed it was Assad in order to gin up support for war.

I still don’t buy that it was Assad. It could have been ISIS (or some other terrorist group that we’ve supported), Saudi Arabia, or even the CIA. It makes no sense that Assad would do this, knowing that it would elicit strong international condemnation. I’m sure he’s a bad dude. But he wouldn’t try desperately to bring attention to himself this way. This is more than likely the work of a clandestine operation, designed to frame Assad. A false flag, if you will.

Senator Rand Paul may not go as far as I do (at least in public), but from his perspective, even if what the media reported is true that Assad gassed his own people, that does not justify the President taking launching a military strike on Syria without a congressional declaration of war. He wrote:

Make no mistake, no matter who is president or what their party is, it is my firm belief that the president needs congressional authorization for military action, as required by the Constitution. I call on this president to come to Congress for a proper debate over our role in Syria, just as I did in 2013 when President Obama contemplated acting in Syria.

I believe that nothing about this situation has changed.  Military action is not in our national security interest and should not be authorized.  Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different.

There is no doubt Assad is a brutal dictator.  But if we seek to remove him, we must ask what comes next.  Assad is fighting radical Islamic rebels, including large parts of ISIS.  Who would take over Syria if Assad is deposed?  Experience in Libya tells us chaos could reign, and radical Islamists could control large parts of the country.

Make no mistake, bombing Assad means the United States is fighting on the same side as ISIS and other radical Islamists in Syria.  This is a dangerous and morally wrong policy.

It’s nice that we have at least one level-headed senator. But did you hear what host Stuart Varney said?

“This is a one-off shot. It’s punishment for the dropping of poison gas on children. It’s not an invasion. It’s not war.” 

Let’s turn this around and say that Syria launched a ‘one-off shot’ at the United States to ‘teach us a lesson.’ Would the media and political establishment accept their ‘message’ and tell Syria that ‘we’ll behave now,’ or would we consider that an act of war and respond accordingly? 

In what universe is launching missile strikes on a foreign country not an act of war?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend