I'm sure Paul is a patriot. The problem is that the bottom line to his argument is that whomever kills Americans should get to set our foreign policy. There are a lot of governments - friendly ones - that disagree with our policies. Friendly though they are, they don't get to set our foreign policy - we do. But they don't set about killing Americans because they disagree with these policies. Only jihadists have this peculiar idea that it is their right to slaughter us en masse because we have policy disagreements. If we don't let our friends set our foreign policy, why should we let jihadists do so?
Paul’s position is that the wisdom of our “no-entangling alliances” founders is what should “set” (guide) our foreign policy. That way we don’t MAKE enemies for you to talk twistingly about.
I think even more than our killing of their people, the Arabs object to us trying to impose OUR values, OUR culture, OUR institutions, and OUR style of government on them. That’s why I think it is misleading to call it the War In Iraq. The honest name for it would be the War On Iraq.