Yes, that's an awkward headline, but work with me here.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is preparing to introduce a declaration of war against ISIS and, according to The Daily Beast, his declaration will "allow boots on the ground."
Perhaps most surprisingly, Paul’s resolution will allow for limited use of boots on the ground “as necessary for the protection or rescue of members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens from imminent danger [posed by ISIS]… for limited operations against high value targets,” and “as necessary for advisory and intelligence gathering operations.”
As The Beast points out, this contradicts Paul's earlier position (shocker!) that we should not deploy ground troops, but that's not what immediately jumps out to me.
What I immediately recognized is that Rand Paul has basically unveiled President Obama's policy.
The president has already deployed men to the area "as necessary." Some in the media and liberal blogosophere have called this a "slippy slope" which could lead to a third Iraq war, which I think is ridiculous, so I am forced to wonder what they would make of Rand Paul's formal declaration of war.
Rand Paul is considered a darling by anti-war liberals and libertarians but this declaration of his could be seen as even more aggressive than the policy of the White House which they so adamantly oppose.
What is an anti-war Brogressive to do when their anti-war hero drafts a declaration of war? Are we dividing by zero?
Rand son of Ron has waffled back and forth on his issue, at one point positioning himself as an even bigger security hawk than President Obama and Hillary Clinton, and at another point delivering a long anti-war diatribe to a nearly-empty chamber of Congress.