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.

[NMC EXP]

Number 1: Bush doesn't need to go to congress first. He has the authority to wield the American sword

Wrong

U.S. Constitution, Arcticle I, section 8 "The Congress shall have Power....To declare War..."

Regards

J.R.

[bassmaner]

Most libertarians (and Libertarians) support the war on terror as it's currently being waged. We recognize the necessity to respond with overwhelming force to the horror that was visited upon us on 9/11. And none of us are too keen about Saddam and his ilk (except for a few wingnuts screaming for an end to the Iraq sanctions at LRC and antiwar.com).

But it just seems too arbitrary, too cut-and-dried to talk about "finishing the job" now, after 11 years have passed. Has any definitive proof been provided that would link Iraq to 9/11? Without such proof, our motives would be suspect. Or is there a "Tonkin Gulf" scenario in the works to provide the justification? And let's face it, where would it stop? Every country in the world can potentially harbor terrorists. Do we send an expeditionary force into Canada next to hunt Osama clones there?

I don't know, I could be wrong about this -- maybe I'm being paranoid. But considering the vast expansion of federal powers in the last few decades, and the natural course of events dictating that whoever has power always seeks to maintain and/or expand it, I can't help but be skeptical about the fedgov's motives, no matter how well-meaning they may seem.

[NC_Libertarian]

Not particularly, but I certainly agree with some of his positions.

[NC_Libertarian]

Strange, then, that his first reason for not supporting the war is that the greatest tyranny on earth, the United Nations, has not sanctioned it.

I'm sure you're aware of Ron Paul's position in regards to the U.N.

IMO, he shouldn't have included that sentence, but once sentence hardly defines a man.

[Zviadist]

Very, very sloppy Mr. Paul. Since when to constitutionalists give a s/t about U.N. "authority?"

Read on:

"Even if he did, it would not satisfy the rule of law laid down by the Framers of the Constitution." AND: "The biggest government of all, the U.N., consistently threatens personal liberties and U.S. sovereignty."

His point is that some people have tried to use UN resolution 687 to bolster their argument for force, but even under those rules (which he does not accept) there is not a valid justification for attack.

[Zviadist]

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.

You are wrong. Read the Constitution.

Third, the U.S. can be said to be in a defacto state of war with Iraq as it is.

No such thing. Again, read the Constitution. We are not at war with Iraq.

Iraq under Hussein is a clear threat to America's security.

On what do you base this absurd assertion? I am tired of people using "clear" when it is by no means clear. Indeed, the experts who have actually been there energetically dispute the assertion that he has any kind of weapons of mass destruction.

As for an attack on Israel, Iraq may try it but it depends on how quick the U.S. can make work of them.

So in your view, it is the duty of the United States military to defend a foreign country that is fully capable of defending itself (remember: Israel DOES posess weapons of mass destruction -- also in violation of UN Resolution 687, but I guess you don't think we should invade for that violation. Some violations are more equal than others). You can say that Israel never attacked us, but in fact neither did Iraq. We attacked them.

[Zviadist]

The liberals do it all the time and they are certainly not doing it for the good of the country,

Then you are just like them. You spit on the Constitution. What are you doing on a conservative website?

[Zviadist]

I seem to remember that the Congress declared war on Iraq in 1991.

Nope. You're wrong.

[Zviadist]

The only mystery is why this so-called supporter of national sovereignty would start off a list of reasons for opposing the war with an appeal to UN authority.

See my reply # 85: His point is that some people have tried to use UN resolution 687 to bolster their argument for force, but even under those rules (which he does not accept) there is not a valid justification for attack.

[Zviadist]

There is no doubt that he used poison gas against the Iranis and the Iraqi Kurds.

Here we go again with this "no doubt" crap. There is plenty of doubt about it.

[cicero's_son]

"IMO, he shouldn't have included that sentence, but once sentence hardly defines a man."

I agree.

[ContemptofCourt]

As a law clerk to a US District Court judge, the first thing I was taught was that anything after the word "clearly" was generally absolutely false. I almost never use the word in legal documents now.....

BTW, nice to see that there is at least one person in gov't that has the stones to stand up to Bush. Too many conservatives have on rose-colored glasses. If Clinton was doing this, we would be seeing NWO threads about how he was going to take over the world.

But it is OK for Bush to decide that Country X is "evil" and therefore we can simply oust their leader. Hmmm, sounds rather imperialist to me....

[Zviadist]

the first thing I was taught was that anything after the word "clearly" was generally absolutely false.

It is a good rule of thumb.

But it is OK for Bush to decide that Country X is "evil" and therefore we can simply oust their leader. Hmmm, sounds rather imperialist to me....

Kind of reminds me of Communist subversion and expansionism. But we would never do that, would we?

[Pay now bill Clinton]

He probably still believes in the "incubater babies" story too.

[M Kehoe]

I like Ron Paul.

Having said that, he is wrong in every supposition he makes.

I'll only state two...

Iraq has not initiated aggression against the United States.

Yes they have. They shoot at coalition aircraft every day. There is direct evidence that Iraq had a hand in the '93 bombing of the Towers. There may be direct evidence (I've seen the video clips) of Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence (oxymoron). There are other ways they attack the U.S. and our interest.

Number six, the cost of a war against Iraq would be prohibitive.

No it wouldn't. You may be able to argue this point, but most would agree that we could take out Iraq (i.e. destruction of thier military and a regime change) in 2 to 4 WEEKS. At a billion dollars a month. Do the math.

Btw, I still like Ron Paul even when he is wrong.

5.56mm

[tm22721]

A dirty nuke set off at 10K feet over Pittsburgh would cause a panic and meltdown of the entire NE corridor.

BUMP

[SunStar]

Nope. You're wrong.

Thanks. At least the previous Freeper provided some information instead of just a slap... Middle fingers up.

[weikel]

Hes right we should attack Saudi Arabia instead.

[weikel]

Its not Iraq we should be going after Bush friends the Saudis should have been months ago they are responsible for 9/11.

[Malcolm]

Who do you suppose is gonna nuke us?

Hmmm, let me see....Saddam? No, he's a nice guy, actually made a contribution to the LP once; the current Ayatollah? Naaaah, he's a sweetheart too; believes in legalized drugs, if I'm not mistaken. Islamic terrorist groups? Nooooo, they're just misunderstood; that 9-11 was a just a big misunderstanding, 'ya know? They were just trying to deliver a vegetarian pizza, those crazy guys.....