Ron Paul: Why Initiate War on Iraq?

Antiwar.com ^ | March 25, 2002 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

[H.R. Gross]

Why Initiate War on Iraq?
by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
March 25, 2002

I was recently asked why I thought it was a bad idea for the President to initiate a war against Iraq. I responded by saying that I could easily give a half a dozen reasons why; and if I took a minute, I could give a full dozen. For starters, here is a half a dozen.

Number one, Congress has not given the President the legal authority to wage war against Iraq as directed by the Constitution, nor does he have U.N. authority to do so. Even if he did, it would not satisfy the rule of law laid down by the Framers of the Constitution.

Number two, Iraq has not initiated aggression against the United States. Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, no matter how evil a dictator he may be, has nothing to do with our national security. Iraq does not have a single airplane in its air force and is a poverty-ridden third world nation, hardly a threat to U.S. security. Stirring up a major conflict in this region will actually jeopardize our security.

Number three, a war against Iraq initiated by the United States cannot be morally justified. The argument that someday in the future Saddam Hussein might pose a threat to us means that any nation, any place in the world is subject to an American invasion without cause. This would be comparable to the impossibility of proving a negative.

Number four, initiating a war against Iraq will surely antagonize all neighboring Arab and Muslim nations as well as the Russians, the Chinese, and the European Union, if not the whole world. Even the English people are reluctant to support Tony Blair's prodding of our President to invade Iraq. There is no practical benefit for such action. Iraq could end up in even more dangerous hands like Iran.

Number five, an attack on Iraq will not likely be confined to Iraq alone. Spreading the war to Israel and rallying all Arab nations against her may well end up jeopardizing the very existence of Israel. The President has already likened the current international crisis more to that of World War II than the more localized Vietnam war. The law of unintended consequences applies to international affairs every bit as much as to domestic interventions, yet the consequences of such are much more dangerous.

Number six, the cost of a war against Iraq would be prohibitive. We paid a heavy economic price for the Vietnam war in direct cost, debt and inflation. This coming war could be a lot more expensive. Our national debt is growing at a rate greater than $250 billion per year. This will certainly accelerate. The dollar cost will be the least of our concerns compared to the potential loss of innocent lives, both theirs and ours. The systematic attack on civil liberties that accompanies all wars cannot be ignored. Already we hear cries for resurrecting the authoritarian program of conscription in the name of patriotism, of course.

Could any benefit come from all this warmongering? Possibly. Let us hope and pray so. It should be evident that big government is anathema to individual liberty. In a free society, the role of government is to protect the individual's right to life and liberty. The biggest government of all, the U.N., consistently threatens personal liberties and U.S. sovereignty. But our recent move toward unilateralism hopefully will inadvertently weaken the United Nations. Our participation more often than not lately is conditioned on following the international rules and courts and trade agreements only when they please us, flaunting the consensus, without rejecting internationalism on principle – as we should.

The way these international events will eventually play out is unknown, and in the process we expose ourselves to great danger. Instead of replacing today's international government, (the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the international criminal court) with free and independent republics, it is more likely that we will see a rise of militant nationalism with a penchant for solving problems with arms and protectionism rather than free trade and peaceful negotiations.

The last thing this world needs is the development of more nuclear weapons, as is now being planned in a pretense for ensuring the peace. We would need more than an office of strategic information to convince the world of that.

What do we need? We need a clear understanding and belief in a free society, a true republic that protects individual liberty, private property, free markets, voluntary exchange and private solutions to social problems, placing strict restraints on government meddling in the internal affairs of others.

Indeed, we live in challenging and dangerous times.

Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.

[drypowder]

Number one, Congress has not given the President the legal authority to wage war against Iraq as directed by the Constitution, nor does he have U.N. authority to do so.
Mmmm, is RP admitting that the UN has control over the US?

[Leonora]

What do we need? We need a clear understanding and belief in a free society, a true republic that protects individual liberty, private property, free markets, voluntary exchange and private solutions to social problems, placing strict restraints on government meddling in the internal affairs of others.

Ron Paul should be the next President.

[freeeee]

I too thought those were odd words coming from Ron Paul.

But read down in the article a little further:

"The biggest government of all, the U.N., consistently threatens personal liberties and U.S. sovereignty."

[OldFriend]

Exporting terrorism is not a threat to America? Guess the Ron Paul doctrine is to wait until something else happens on our shore before we take action. Perhaps someone can email the gentleman a picture of the burning towers as a little reminder of what the terrorists have in store for us.

[hove]

Here's the deal. Saddam is a bad dude...and he does support terrorism. Against Israel and America. Especially since his defeat in the Gulf War. Papa Bush had two serious thorns in his side as he was booted out for Clinton. One was letting Congress raise taxes after he proclaimed that there would be "no new taxes". His boy fixed that right out of the chute by giving us our tax refund last year. That was good. The other thorn was convincing Americans that Saddam was the second coming of Hitler....then letting him go to be a menace to the world. His boy MUST finish the job. And he will!

[smokinandvotin]

Okay, most of us agree that the Iraqi is bad. But the PROTUS must present evidence to Congress and Congress must declare war. Right now Bush has too much power and is acting like a monarch. Too many conservatives are giving the abuses of power a pass because he has an R next to his name. What happens when a Democrat gets elected and all these government agencies are in place? (Homeland Security, etc.)

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I am a Ron Paul fan but I disagree with some of this. I support Paul's vision for America, the one envisioned by the founders, but we are dealing with an enemy (domestically) that has learned to use our freedoms to suppress our freedoms. I am talking of course about the Democrat Party and its socialist running mates. Because of them, we have a difficult time doing what is best for America and getting anything reasonable through Congress will be almost impossible. The result of Paul's idealism is not unlike that of the "useful idiots" so well manipulated by the Communists. Sounds good but impossible to implement under present conditions. We should remember that the only way Bush I was able get the Gulf War funded was by the Republicans making the highest bid for Al Gore's tie-breaking vote.

Paul also seems to ignore 9/11 and the other attacks on Americans and American property leading up to it. Bill Clinton foolishly pledged not to retaliate against a first strike nuclear attack on this country. I think a preemtive first strike on our part is the most prudent policy and it may be necessary with Iraq. What will the rest of the Arabs think? Screw them! They are cowards who only know how to fight a cowards way - destroying innocents - and they are already doing that. Bush II said you are either with us or with the cowards who have declared war on us. If Saddam is not with us he is already the enemy and an attack on him is no different than the attack on Afghanistan.

I fear that Paul's idealism ,which I share, may help those who intend to destroy what he holds dear.

[smokinandvotin]

So when congress will not approve what you want you should subvert it? But only when it is beneficial to conservatives? That makes it okay?

[NC_Libertarian]

I love this man.

And I can't understand why conservatives don't. He's a socially conservative Christian. He's a pro-life OBGYN Physician. He's a patriot and a stict constructionist, and therefore supports limited constitutional government and state sovereignty.

But he doesn't toe the Republican party line. And people are allways crying about RINOs....

This is the RINO war. This war has been great for the Republican PARTY (not conservatism) and it will continue for as long as they can milk it. Hell this is better then the drug war.

[smokinandvotin]

You Nailed It!

[NC_Libertarian]

Exporting terrorism is not a threat to America? Guess the Ron Paul doctrine is to wait until something else happens on our shore before we take action. Perhaps someone can email the gentleman a picture of the burning towers as a little reminder of what the terrorists have in store for us.

IF MORE PEOPLE LIKE RON PAUL WERE IN CHARGE THEN 9/11 WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED