Libertarian Ron Paul Writes Essay On Non-interventionist Policy In Syria
When it comes to American foreign policy on Syria, the old adage ” the enemy of my enemy is my friend” somehow doesn’t seem to apply. Syria, a unitary republic with a semi-presidential style of government, has been fighting ISIS; so why, then, does the United States attack pro-assad and syrian government forces?
In a new essay titled “Why Are we Attacking the Syrians Who Are Fighting ISIS?”, Libertarian icon Ron Paul seeks to answer just this question.
The United States is occupying the sovereign nation of Syria, without the authorization of congress or the UN Security Council, under the assertion that the Syrian Government is too weak to handle ISIS on its own. Ron Paul reminds readers that even if this weakness is true, it is because of “six-years of US-sponsored rebels fighting to overthrow” Assad’s regime.
Paul states that the US military is afraid of Syria and Iraq working together with Iranian-allied militia groups to fight ISIS, thus strengthening Iran’s position in the Middle East, something which US ally Saudi Arabia would not like.
Paul asserts that taking action to avoid this may be in our Middle Eastern allies’ best interest, the same is not so for US interests. Getting involved in the Shia/Sunni conflict does more harm than good for the United States.
Like a true libertarian, Paul preaches the benefits of non-interventionist policy in Syria, saying that it much of our current policy ends up “dangerous” or “counterproductive”. He believes the best policy is to get American troops out of Syria, citing the liberation of Aleppo by the Syrian government, and its’ subsequent return to normalcy, as an example of what will happen if Syria is left alone.