Another GOP intra-party fight

The more the Republicans fight among themselves, the better it is for the Democrats.   Now -- in addition to differences about immigration and the splits between social issues Republicans, Libertarian Republicans, and establishment Republicans -- we can add foreign policy to the list of intra-party disagreements.

The crisis in Iraq is prompting open discussions about who's to blame and what should be done?    Send troops back in?   Air strikes? 

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) takes a strong non-interventionist stance on Sunday's CNN "State of the Union."    Saying that militarily we could go back in;   we have the military might and power, he said.   But, as president, Paul says he would not send troops.   He elaborated:

"But the country as a whole has to decide, do we want to send 100,000 troops in? Are we willing to have 4,500 young Americans die to save a city like Mosul that the Shiites won't even save, that they have fled?" 

Paul also responded to critics who say that President Obama should have taken action to overthrow Assad in Syria, saying we need less involvement in the region, not more.

"We went into Libya and we got rid of that terrible Qaddafi, now it's a jihadist wonderland over there. . . .There's jihadists everywhere. If we were to get rid of Assad it would be a jihadist wonderland in Syria. It's now a jihadist wonderland in Iraq, precisely because we got over-involved. . . . 

"You have to ask yourself, are you willing to send your son, am I willing to send my son to retake back a city, Mosul, that they weren't willing to defend themselves?  I'm not willing to send my son into that mess."

Ex-Veep Dick Cheney, speaking on ABC's "This Week," disagreed:

"Rand Paul, with all due respect, is basically an isolationist.  He doesn't believe we ought to be involved in that part of the world. I think it's absolutely essential. One of the things I worried about 12 years ago -- and that I worry about today -- is that there will be another 9/11 attack and that the next time it'll be with weapons far deadlier than airline tickets and box cutters."

I'm not a Rand Paul fan -- nor a Dick Cheney fan -- far from it.    But it is good that there is disagreement within the Republican party over these issues, which means we might even have a meaningful public debate about our place in the 21st century world.   

President Obama has tried to initiate that with both words and actions (sometimes inaction, which has brought sharp criticism from the war hawks and neo-cons).    But Republicans have mostly just criticized him.   Now, with Rand Paul's opposition, it might elevate the discussion above the knee-jerk Republican criticism of anything Obama does.   It might just provoke the kind of discussion that the country needs. 

Ralph