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.

[mitchbert]

This will be a fun thread....

I agree...here's two cents for the kitty...

Number 1: Bush doesn't need to go to congress first. He has the authority to wield the American sword in defense of the nation's national security. Congress could deny him funds, but only after a period of time. As for the U.N. it's clear Hussein is in violation of his ceasefire agreement. Third, the U.S. can be said to be in a defacto state of war with Iraq as it is. Those jets aren't firing toy arrows at Iraqi anti-aircraft sites and they've been in action for years.

Number 2: Iraq under Hussein is a clear threat to America's security. Just because the threat isn't one of invasion doesn't make it non-existant. He makes no effort to hide the fact that he wants to destroy America. The only question is how he plans to attempt it. Hitler didn't attack America either (although he did declare war) but America, through the lend lease act and cooperation with Canada played a fundamental supporting role before 1941. Smart nations take threatening aggressors at their word, they don't wait for the nukes to go off in their cities.

Number 3: Stopping a murderous madman in control of a country with a desire to make and use WMD before he has the chance is morally just. Period. Standing back and allowing him to commit mass genocide, attack an ally (Israel, etc) and then saying "well, we really couldn't do anything pre-emtively" is immoral.

Number 4: The arabs will posture and do nothing, especially if the result is quick and decisive. The Chinese will huff and puff, but also likely do nothing (unless the thing turns into a quagmire in which case Taiwan could come into play). I'd also argue that Iraq is a much more pressing problem than Iran. Iran at least is trying to make an attempt at letting it's people breathe a bit. And let's not forget that it was Iraq that invaded Iran, not the other way around. Iran may be ruled by some bad mullahs, but they have no stomach for a fight with the U.S.

Number 5: Arab nations will NOT rally around Iraq. As for an attack on Israel, Iraq may try it but it depends on how quick the U.S. can make work of them. Arab nations are NOT likely to attack Israel without gross provocation as they know it would be a losing proposition. Besides, the only nation still at war with Israel that shares it's border is Syria and the proxy Lebanon (i don't count the palis...Israel could make very quick work of them if she wanted to). Jordan and Egypt aren't going anywhere.

Number 6: The cost will be high, no doubt, but the Vietnam comparison is bogus. Ask yourself...how much would it cost to dig Manhatten out from a pile of radioactive rubble? Pay now or pay later.

Just my 2 cents, and of course, the advice is worth what you pay for it, eh?

[smokinandvotin]

If you read the next sentence of the paragraph, it says:

Even if he did, it would not satisfy the rule of law laid down by the Framers of the Constitution.

He says that if he did have UN Authoritah, it still wouldn't be good enough.

[NC_Libertarian]

I saw that article and couldn't even bring myself comment. If Dole is on the ticket for senator here in NC, not only will I not be voteing Republican, I will be voteing Democrat.

I don't appreciate these scum like Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Dole abusing our system of representation. I don't need some big Washington personality to come into my state and claim to represent me.

[NC_Libertarian]

Respect my authoritah!

[OldFriend]

9/11 HAPPENED and we must deal with that fact! If only's amount to nothing now. Remind all those conservatives who sat home and refused to vote for the first President Bush or voted for Perot.

[TD911]

"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.

Boy, we did some job on 9/11!

Sealing our borders will not protect us, since we know this will NEVER be done.

Pre-emptive, Pro-Active action is needed. If Isreal did not take the plant out at Osirik, who knows where we all would be.

It's nice and "principled" to stick one's head in the sand and hope for the best. Just talk to Neville Chamberlain or the Democrats during the Cold War!

[NC_Libertarian]

9/11 HAPPENED and we must deal with that fact!

I agree, and being in this situation, and unlike many other Libertarians, I support a military response to 9/11. Even though what happened could have been prevented, I don't beleive you can not respond to such an attack.

But I want clear goals and obectives.

I don't like the idea of fishing for a place with enough public approval to attack. Either we have a reason to attack or we don't. If we have a reason then go for it, the rest of the world be damned. We are a sovereign nation.

But we are playing a PR game here. We had justification and an objective for Afgahnistan. I'm not convinced we have justification for Iraq.

[smokinandvotin]

I am not trying to speak for Rep Paul, but I think he mentions it because that argument can be used to get around Congress voting on the declaration of war.

He is showing the lack of authority Bush is preparing to act on. Even though the UN thing is bs, it is still an option on the table.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

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?

Yep and Yes and yeah.

The liberals do it all the time and they are certainly not doing it for the good of the country, just for their own personal power. Conservatives are more in tune with the founders and with the things that made this country great. Just as Ronald Reagan had to go around Congress to fight the Communists in Central America so must we always fight the Communists in Congress. Do I like it that way? Not at all. I prefer Ron Paul's America but we have momentarily lost it and we must get it back.

There is good and bad and at the moment the other side, the Democrats and other socialists, are wrong and we are right.

[thepitts]

yes

[ScreamingFist]

"Now it seems that as long as it is Bush making the proposal, it is OK.

During a Fox news segment on attacking Iraq, a gentleman made the comment that one reason Bush is pushing for a quick start to an Iraq war is because it could prove to be so unpopular as to cost Bush the 2004 election. Apparently, W believes the need to remove sadaam is more important than a second term.

[AzJP]

IMHO your interpretation matches mine. A number of POTUS scoundrels have come up with all sorts of vehicles to circumvent a Constitutional declaration of war.
Tonkin Gulf, Bosnia, etc. etc.
Without even the flimsy excuse of NATO says it's OK, or the UN, or whatever, it's not right.
I believe Paul is pointing out that Bush doesn't even have any of those.
T

[mitchbert]

Enjoyed the rebut...good counter arguments. Thanks.

[smokinandvotin]

If that is the way you feel about our current system then maybe it doesn't work anymore.