Rand Paul dá mais uma entrevista em que procura explicar algumas das suas ideias sobre a política externa norte-americana, defender-se de acusações e abordar a questão de como agir contra o Estado Islâmico. Os destaques são da minha autoria mas a entrevista deve ser lida na íntegra na The Federalist. A caixa de comentários, servirá para o necessário carpir de mágoas aos viúvos devotos do isolacionismo.
Rand Paul Responds To His Critics On ISIS And Foreign Policy An exclusive interview with the Senator from Kentucky.
(…)The thing that I in some ways laugh at, because nobody seems to get this, is that I spent the past five years in public life telling everyone that “hey, I’m not an isolationist” … and when they find out I’m not, they say I’ve switched positions, because I’m not the position they were saying I was. You know what I mean? So for five years they’ve been accusing me of being something that I say I’m not. And then when they find out I’m really not, they say I’ve changed my position. You can see how it’s a little bit frustrating for me. (…)
At the same time, I’ve also said all along that I’m not for no interventions. I’m not for saying “we never intervene”, and this is what I’ve spent five years trying to tell people is my policy, I don’t want to be branded as someone who believes in no intervention. In the current situation, I do think this is a judgement call, and I still continue to believe that Congress should vote on it. It’s an imperative that Congress declare war, and I’ve never changed my position on that, but I’ve always said that when we vote then there is a debate, and the debate concerns our vital American interests. And that’s something that even good people can sometimes disagree on. With ISIS, they’re beheading American citizens, they’ve actively said that if they can, and when they can, they’ll come to New York. They’re within, I think a day’s march or a day’s drive of Erbil and the consulate there. I think that they probably would be repelled in Baghdad, but they could be a threat to Baghdad. I think ultimately if left to their own devices, they could organize the same way Al-Qaeda organized in Afghanistan, and if given a safe haven that they could be a real threat to us at home.
(…)In general, I do think the war on the ground should be fought by those who live there. It offends me that sixteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis, it offends me that they finance radical Islam, and it offends me that they get rich off of our buying their oil and they don’t fight. So I’d like to see the first several thousands in the front lines attacking ISIS be Iraqis, but I’d also like to see the Saudis up there, Kuwaitis, Qataris. I’d like to see them fight. Ultimately, and this is where I in some ways I agree with the president, this is a long war against radical Islam, but the ultimate victory over radical Islam will have to come from civilized Islam. (…)
Leituras complementares: Rand Paul and ISIL; Rand Paul, o novo falcão II e Rand Paul, o novo falcão.
“Isolacionista” é um termo cunhado por Roosevelt, um dos dois tipos “internacionalistas” que perdeu a guerra para Estaline. Como agora perdem para o extremismo. Como bébés.
Há que explicar essa narrativa ao Rand Paul.
Pingback: Rand Paul, o novo falcão IV | O Insurgente