Posted on 03/04/2002 12:03:49 PM PST by oursacredhonor
With our military actions waning in Afghanistan, the administration appears to be gearing up for a second phase in the Middle East. Although the Al-Queda threat has not yet been fully neutralized, political and popular support for a full-scale war against Iraq is growing. The President explicitly named Iraq as a target in his State of the Union address, and British Prime Minister Blair recently stated his backing for such an invasion.
Yet I remain convinced we should be very cautious before we send troops and bombs into Iraq. It's simple to point out that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, but it's not so easy to demonstrate that he poses a threat to us. We should also remember that the congressional resolution passed immediately after September 11th, which I supported, authorized military force only against those directly responsible for the attacks- and there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq played a role in those attacks. This leaves me with two serious concerns: first, the near-certainty that this coming war will be undeclared, and hence unconstitutional; and second, that such a war does not serve our best interests.
First and foremost, we must follow the Constitution and require that the President secure a congressional declaration of war before he proceeds against Iraq. Undeclared wars represent one of the greatest threats to our constitutional separation of powers over the last 50 years, beginning with our "police action" in Korea. This most sacred legislative function- the power to send our young people into harm's way- must be exercised by Congress alone, the body most directly connected to the electorate.
The undeclared wars waged by various Presidents during the last century represent a very serious usurpation of the legislative function, adding greatly to the rise of the "imperial Presidency" that we witnessed so clearly during the Clinton years. I'm always amazed that Congress is quite willing to simply give away one of its greatest powers, especially when it spends so much time otherwise trying to expand its powers by passing extra-constitutional legislation. The reason for this, I'm afraid, is Congress learned in Vietnam that wars sometimes go very badly, and few want to be on record as having voted for a war if they can avoid it. So despite all the talk in Congress of "supporting the President," nobody wants to really support him by doing the obvious and passing a declaration of war.
Constitutional questions aside, we have to ask ourselves quite simply whether it serves any national interest to invade Iraq. So often we lose sight of the true purpose of our military, which is to defend our borders against attack. Remember, Iraq has not initiated aggression against us. We, on the other hand, have bombed them, taunted them by flying military jets in their airspace, and starved them with economic sanctions- all for more than a decade. We haven't done these things out of humanitarian concern for Kuwait, we've done them because we want to protect our oil interests. Yet these actions have harmed the people of Iraq, not the Hussein regime. If anything, our policies serve to generate support for Hussein, who uses American aggression as a convenient scapegoat to deflect attention from his own oppression. Sadly, we've made him a martyr in Iraq and much of the wider Muslim world, alienating many otherwise pro-Western Iraqi moderates in the process. I question the wisdom, and the necessity, of once again traveling 6000 miles to pick a fight with a third-world Muslim nation that is simply not threatening us.
Congress should not allow any administration to take our nation to war without the consent of the people. I fear that we are about to embark on an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Iraq that is exceedingly unwise and fraught with unforeseen consequences. This war will have nothing to do with US national security or Iraqi aggression. It will, however, make us all less secure by antagonizing millions of Muslims who understand the necessity of our actions against Al-Queda, but who will object to an invasion of Iraq.
So which is it?
I'm having a hard time getting a handle on this whole "initiation of force" principle. Maybe some libertarian would be kind enough to explain it to me.
Let's say I get into an altercation with someone at a bar, and he threatens to punch my lights out. In a libertarian society, at what point am I allowed to hit him? Does his threat, if delivered with sufficient seriousness, constitute the requisite force? Or must I let him take the first swing? If I duck and he misses, may I consider force initiated, or do I actually have to let him hit me first?
Too bad that earlier generations of Congresscritters allowed an imperial Presidency to come into being, starting with Lincoln.
I am not a conservative as much as a reactionary : a conservative is simply one who wants no more change, whereas a reactionary would like to turn back to earlier ways.
Being a strict Constitutionalist is not very popular with conservatives or liberals.
Liar
To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched
against the United States.
Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its
citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to
self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these
grave acts of violence, and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States,
Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of
international terrorism against the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
Section 1. Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"
Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts
of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements
(1) Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the
Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the
meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.
Sure hope you are not on Ron's PR team trying to win votes. But if you are it explains a lot of things.
The first line of the Congressional Resolution mentioned above:
"To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States."
I don't see how you can call Dr. Paul a liar in this case.
Ditto.
But, my understanding is that congress is going to have to fund it in the end anyway, so they will either have to be on board or take the heat when Saddam ties up the oil we need or trains more jihaddies to turn lose on us.
When I hear people nattering on this point, I wish they would just say they object to the action, rather than trying to make the case that they can't do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.