The debate over whether the U.S. should launch airstrikes against Syria is testing the willingness of rank-and-file Republicans to get involved in another military conflict and giving the partys libertarian wing a chance to push the party toward adopting a less interventionist approach to foreign policy. <\/p>\n
Sen. Rand Paul and other GOP lawmakers in both chambers have challenged the Obama administrations call for an attack against Syrian President Bashar Assads regime putting them at odds with House GOP leaders and some of the leading Republicans voices on foreign affairs issues in the Senate, who have lined up behind the president. <\/p>\n
I think there is a reasonable argument that the world may be less stable because of this and that it may not deter any chemical weapons attack, Mr. Paul, Kentucky Republican, said Tuesday during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. I havent had one person come up to me and say they are for this war. Not one person. <\/p>\n
Rep. Justin Amash, Michigan Republican, delivered a similar message during a town hall tour across his district, saying via Twitter that his constituents are sending him a clear message: Do not get us into a war in Syria. <\/p>\n
I cant recall an issue this lopsided, Mr. Amash said. <\/p>\n
Congress last authorized the use of military force in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that led to almost 3,000 deaths on American soil and generated strong public support for military action in Afghanistan and then Iraq. <\/p>\n
Indeed, no Republicans opposed the 2001 resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to use force against those responsible for the 9\/11 terrorist attacks paving the way for military operations in Afghanistan. A single Republican in the Senate and just a half-dozen Republicans in the House voted against the Bush administration and the authorization of the use of force in Iraq in 2002. Democrats also strongly supported both resolutions. <\/p>\n
Since then, public support for the wars has plummeted, and Republicans have shouldered most of the political blame. <\/p>\n
Along the way, Democrats won the Senate in the 2006 election and two years later Barack Obama won the White House, after touting his early opposition to the Iraq War. <\/p>\n
The party has paid a price politically for going in one direction, while the public is going in the opposite direction, said Christopher A. Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Continue reading here:<\/p>\n
GOP's libertarian wing sees opportunity to push for less intervention<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The debate over whether the U.S. should launch airstrikes against Syria is testing the willingness of rank-and-file Republicans to get involved in another military conflict and giving the partys libertarian wing a chance to push the party toward adopting a less interventionist approach to foreign policy Continue reading