By writer Brian Abington

Iraq, in recent days has descended into the religious territorial warfare that many feared would happen after our military left. Every news source has been filled with video and photos of the Sunni aligned Islamist group ISIS executing dozens of Iraqi soldiers who they forced to lay face down in a shallow grave. Further reporting on violence in other regions of the country ranges from a simple take over of the city to mass slaughter of those who are of a different Islamic sect.

The overwhelming speed and ferocity of the attacks has prompted our government to begin the discussion of how to solve this problem. Lindsey Graham, stated that the next 9/11 attack could come from within Iraq.

President Obama in his address to the nation on Friday said we should consider preparation for air strikes and short term military assistance, but followed up that preparation by saying that the United States “is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis that gives us some assurance that they’re prepared to work together.”

Today, June 16th the President announced that we would be sending 275 troops back to Baghdad to protect the massive, mysterious, yet now mostly empty embassy we built there.

This past Saturday, Rand Paul in an interview with the Des Moines Register said “I would not rule out air strikes. But I would say, after 10 years, it is appalling to me that they are stripping their uniforms off and running. And it concerns me that we would have to do their fighting for them because they won’t fight for their own country, their own cities. I am thinking that it is time that they step up.”

FreedomWorks Analyst and popular liberty pundit, Julie Borowski told that, “I’m glad that Rand Paul is against sending American ground troops to Iraq. His comment that he would not rule out air strikes does worry me. I hope that he will clarify what he believes the solution is to the situation.”

I find myself in agreement with Julie on this point. His statement sounds like he is concerned about the humanitarian crisis resulting from those we spent billions of dollars training fleeing from the fight they knew was inevitable. Not drawing the line in the sand on what he believes to be the best solution is concerning and leaves his words open to speculation.

Rand Paul is one of those love em or hate em politicians. He creates mixed feelings amongst those of us in the liberty movement. There are those who completely distrust him and call him a neocon, and those like myself who want to like him but are brought to deep qualms by his stance on big issues.

His statements regarding what is currently happening in Iraq is reflective of previous statements he has made regarding Iran. On one hand he says we don’t need to be the world’s police force, on the other he says all options should be on the table to prevent a Nuclear Iran.

Tony has had a chance to interview Rand in the past and when asked about why he tends to play both sides of issues he simply replied “I’m a politician!” We all know that Congress has become a sanctuary for the you scratch my back and I’ll co-sign your bill career politicians.

When Rand was elected as a Senator in 2010 he and Incoming Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) both appeared to be the candidates that the liberty movement needed in the face of Dr. Ron Paul’s, eventual retirement. Gladly Amash stands strong as an unwavering champion of liberty and I deeply respect his listing every vote on facebook and twitter. Rand on the other hand has endorsed neocons to play the game. As well as making multiple statements about domestic issues that leave our heads spinning.

Rand’s thoughts on Iraq as well as him saying in the past that he is not a libertarian don’t need to be completely disconcerting to those in the movement. He is one of the few members of congress who has been outspoken about violations of the constitution concerning civil liberties, domestic spying, war, and the federal reserve.

Personally I feel that it is much easier to change Rand Paul’s mind on foreign policy and the drug war than it is to change the mind of a neocon or progressive candidate on everything.