I would be interested in understanding how he proposes to balance US national security interests with scaling back the NSAs capabilities and Total Information A

I would be interested in understanding how he proposes to balance US national security interests with scaling back the NSAs capabilities and Total Information Awareness. I am aware (totally ;)) that Rand Paul is considered a bit of a 'dove' and in that way represents me and many other citizens very well. However, this dovish attitude failed to express itself before when it came to ISIS - just as it is likely to fail in the face of the Wolfowitz Doctrine - the primary US national security concern has been for the past 25 years that there should be no nation that grows mightily enough to challenge the United States. The defense industry is so bent on this doctrine, and the US allies and obligations so tangled up in it, it would take at least a full 8 years of effort to unravel. What's more, these absolutely radical changes to the United States would alter it inexorably (I'm not saying terribly) from its current state (perhaps closer to 1800's traditional America). Provided the current challenges to US power, a retirement of global bullying would seem to represent a peaceful option in the short term - but its exactly the sort of thing that causes long term defense strategists heart attacks. What's more - the NSA capabilities means are disjoint from their ends. I'm not sure whether Paul means to say that he would reverse the NSA's ends to apply their capabilities toward American citizens: thus ending surveillance - but then only by the same sort of policy that is represented by the FISA courts. He could possibly mean that he would scale back the NSA's means, but doing so would be absolutely untenable to anyone close to Washington especially as cyber is seen as one of the key weak areas of US defense. On this note does anyone know who would make up Rand's security council? Is he proposing to elect general doves? Overall, the statement that he would end surveillance means nothing. We need to know how he would propose to end it. What would it entail? What trade-offs are being made on interacting fronts? I applaud the lip service though. Even if it's bunk, let's hear some more promises to end mass surveillance. (I'd also like them to mention the DEA, FBI and other intelligence orgs - it ain't just NSA). Clinton?