'I don’t take that lightly,' Rubio says about Iraq action. | AP Photos Paul, Rubio differ on Iraq action

Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, two Republican senators who may run for president, are offering sharply different reactions to developments in Iraq, with Rubio backing potential American airstrikes against al-Qaeda-inspired militants advancing in the country and Paul expressing concerns about involvement.

The divergent approaches illustrate the ongoing rift in the GOP over America’s role abroad, and could foretell a major point of contention among Republicans vying for the GOP’s nod in 2016. The views come as the White House weighs what it will do next in Iraq, where the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, a Sunni extremist group, has taken over Mosul and other cities.


On Friday, President Barack Obama said the U.S. will not redeploy ground troops, but other options are being considered. He pledged to consult with Congress throughout the process, though whether that would entail a vote is unclear.

Florida’s Rubio delivered a lengthy floor speech on Thursday arguing that “the choice before us will be whether we take action now, or we take action later.” He warned that ignoring the chaos in the country, which U.S. troops withdrew from in 2011 after years of war, raised the risk that it would turn into a safe haven for terrorists who could threaten America and its allies.

( Also on POLITICO: Obama: Iraq turmoil could threaten U.S. interests)

“I believe that we should not rule out and in fact conduct, to the extent they are effective, military action from the air against this group wherever they are located,” Rubio said. “I don’t take that lightly. I am not one to come to this floor and call for military engagements as a response to every conflict. I have opposed them in the past when they’ve made no sense, or there is no clear plan moving forward. But this issue rises to that level of urgency.”

Rubio is a national security hawk at a time when polls show public opinion has moved away from pro-interventionist sentiments. His comments echoed the GOP foreign policy attitudes dominant during the Bush administration, when in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there was greater appetite for preemptive military action — a dynamic that allowed for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Acknowledging the more recent, inward-looking shift in public opinion, Rubio said: “Ultimately, while the use of force is never popular around here, I want to be blunt and clear about something. We are going to have to take some sort of action against this radical group.”

Meanwhile, Kentucky’s Paul, a libertarian-leaning politician, expressed deep reservations about renewed American military involvement in Iraq, and outlined concerns that Congress wouldn’t be sufficiently consulted before action was taken.

( Also on POLITICO: Why Obama can't get out of Iraq)

“I hate that Mosul is falling, but I also think that for 10 years we have supplied the Iraqis and they can’t stand up and do anything to defend their country, and it is all up to us?” he said during questions to a panel before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He said he was trying to think about Iraq from the perspective of a soldier, and repeatedly characterized the dynamics in the Middle East as “confusing.”

“You could even go back 10 years and say, you know what, it might have been a little more stable when we had that awful guy, [Saddam] Hussein, who hated the Iranians,” he said. “I’m not saying I’m for having Hussein. I’m saying geopolitically we had people at somewhat of a standstill over there and now you have a really confusing mess.”

Paul said factions in the Middle East have “hated each other” for centuries and will likely continue to do so. He also expressed concerns that the White House would determine it has the authority to go back to Iraq without consulting Congress.

“I am not saying don’t be involved,” he said. “I am saying try to help in some way. But really think seriously before we say, ‘Oh, it’s real easy. We have the might.’ We do. We could go in and we could do it. But are you willing to let 4,000 more soldiers die in Iraq, Americans, to bring back Mosul? I think it’s terrible what’s happening, but the Iraqis need to step up and defend their country, and I just don’t know if I’m ready [to] send 4,000 soldiers in.”