"If it was wrong not to protect the consulate in Benghazi, then it's wrong not to protect the consulate in Erbil."
In an interview with Nick Gillespie, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) explains why he supports limited military action in Iraq:
While the beheadings of U.S. citizens James Foley and Steven Sotloff are a factor, he says, Paul is especially insistent that protecting the U.S. consulate in Erbil, Iraq is a major cause for ongoing concern. Erbil is near Mosul, a city overrun by ISIS with relative ease, he says, and it's of paramount importance that the United States protect its diplomatic personnel in Iraq.
"If it was wrong not to protect the consulate in Benghazi, then it's wrong not to protect the consulate in Erbil," he says.
In the same conversation, Paul also reiterates his commitment to congressional authorization of all warmaking, the need to stay out of Syria, and why Middle Eastern countries must be the ones who bear the biggest burden in defeating ISIS.
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?