Regarding this…

Sometimes Paul stood alone against both parties. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a fellow Tea Party triumph from last year’s election, had bipartisan support for an amendment to bring the former Soviet republic of Georgia into NATO. “It called for the President to lead a diplomatic effort to get approval of Georgia’s Membership Action Plan during the upcoming NATO Summit in Chicago,” a Rubio spokesman explained in an email.

Paul blocked the amendment. He believed that NATO expansion in this sensitive area could embroil the United States in Georgia’s conflicts with a nuclear-armed Russia, potentially risking war.

What kind of dumbass logic is that? Does Paul really believe Russia would initiate a war with Georgia if it meant the United States entering the conflict on Georgia’s behalf? And does he believe Georgia would initiate a war with Russia after that last disaster? And knowing the United States might balk at support, leaving Tblisi to fight for itself?

NATO membership would give both countries — Russia and Georgia — too much to lose by initiating a conflict. Russia wouldn’t risk the possibility of going to war with the United States, whereas Georgia wouldn’t risk starting a war without a guarantee of an Article V invocation. The benefit to the United States would be greater regional stability and another country allied with us formally to counter regional threats.

The United States allied itself for decades with countries opposed to the much more formidable, much more dangerous Soviet Union. Never over the course of those decades did we end up in a hot war with the Soviet Union. What makes Paul think a weaker Russia would take risks the Soviets wouldn’t?

Like his father, Rand is showing himself to be great on domestic matters but absolutely awful on foreign policy. The isolationist in him overtakes common sense and good security policy. That’s a shame. I was hoping he’d be the more reasonable one in his family.