Re: "What would Republicans do about Islamic State?" (Eugene Robinson column, 6-2).
Robinson almost endorses Rand Paul's noninterventionist foreign policy, but hesitates, indicating: “If by some chance Paul were to end up as president, he'd have to decide what to do (about the Islamic State). He hasn't really told us what that might be.”
Why does the U.S. president have to decide what to do about the IS?
The Iranians, who are Shiite, are already throwing bombs at the Sunni group IS, as is Syrian President Assad – all of which makes it hard for the U.S. to organize the fight against the IS because we've declared Assad and Iran to be our “enemies.”
Never miss a local story.
Moreover, students of history know that the Sunnis and Shiites have been at each other's throats since about the year 632 when Muhammad died. Given all that complexity, how about the U.S. doing nothing? The worst result – so far – of the American government's policy of constant meddling in the Middle East was the attack of Sept. 11, 2001.
Will Rogers famously quipped: “If you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.” He also said: “Never miss a good chance to shut up.” Both seem good advice for American politicians anxious to decide what to do about ISIS.
If Obama has any great legacy, it may well be that he didn't get American embroiled in one more war over there.