Foreign Wars - Stay, or Go?

I'm generally against war. The only time war might be indicated is when vital American interests - American territory, right of passage for ships/planes, or hostages in peril, to give a few examples - are at risk.

No American territory - whether states, protectorates, or possessions - can be permitted to be assaulted without a quick response.

Ships and planes need to be protected, so they might freely travel around the world. For this reason, the US has traveled to that part of the South China Sea that China has built artificial islands on. We are continuing to travel through that area, to limit China's illegal extension of territory.

Hostages are a tough issue. In the past, we limited the places to which Americans were permitted to travel - some places that were not considered safe were Pakistan, Cuba, and other unstable places. In general, we have expected foreign state cooperation with US authorities in retrieving Americans in danger. If held by the government, as in Grenada, we sent in the troops to bring them back out.

The rise of idiots deliberately going into dangerous and unstable parts of the world has made that policy largely moot. Other than the sudden deterioration of public order, no troops should be committed to rescue chuckleheads who have ignored the dangers for the thrill of travel to 'edgy' places.

I'm with Rand Paul on this. Pulling out the 50 troops that were in Syria may put the Kurds in danger. But, although they were our allies in the Gulf Wars, SO ARE THE TURKS! Like it or not, Turkey IS a NATO nation.

That means this is a fight between two independent US Allies.

Which should mean, hands off the entire mess. It is NOT our job to jump between warring countries with such a murky and entangled relationship to the US.

See Paul's appearance on the view at the link.

Further discussion on the topic here.