The GOP debate showed why we should be grateful for Rand Paul's foreign policy

Obviously, we must have a strong national defense. Hell, I’ll even take it a step farther: We need to have the strongest national defense in the world.

But here’s the thing: We already do. By a lot. Rand Paul did such a great job of defending his (and my) view by explaining that we already “spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined.” That’s huge! I mean, seriously, how much do we need to spend for the Republicans like Marco Rubio to be satisfied? More than all the countries combined? When is it enough? Is it ever?

He was also bold enough to oppose a no-fly zone in Syria that was very popular among the other candidates — pointing out that it would likely lead to another war in Iraq — and doubled down on his what-some-see-as-radical-but-I-would-call-reasonable idea that “You can be strong without being involved in every civil war around the world.”

To me, this view is just so refreshingly logical and level-headed — and it came as such a relief to hear someone say it on a stage full of people taking positions that I can only describe as irresponsible warmongering.