Ft. Atkinson, WI
By A.B. Dada
—
Many of my neoconservative friends (and I don’t use that as an ad hominem attack) don’t like Ron Paul because of his desire to withdraw United States military troops from all the various countries and regions where they are stationed, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul’s stance, which is Constitutionally correct in my opinion, is that the United States can’t wage aggressive action without a declaration of Congress. For those who are familiar with U.S. history, the last time an actual Congressional Declaraction of War was waged was for World War II. Since then, all military actions have been supra-Constitutional: beyond the scope of the Constitution and therefore exceeding the power of the Federal government.
Many of my neoconservative friends seem to like Paul on his taxation stance (end the IRS), and some like his Federal Reserve stance (end it). In other areas they are not so fond of him, but they’ll grudgingly accept that he is definitely a paleoconservative a la Goldwater and Taft.
I’ve explained to many the ideals of a Paul Presidency: his 3 decades of history in Federal government prove repeatedly that he is a man of his word; as far as I can tell, he has never broken promises or violated his Constitutional oath. The same can’t be said of every other Congressman and Senator in that time frame, unfortunately.
For neoconservatives, this should be a HUGE reason to support a Paul Presidency, even if he is adamant about withdrawing from the Middle East. Just because Paul says that he won’t wage a war against Iran (or Iraq or Afghanistan) does not mean that a war won’t be waged. As President, Constitutionally Paul would not have the power to make that decision. It is Congress’ power to wage war.
Picture this: Dr. Paul gets elected as President in 2008. He immediately issues a command for an organized and efficient withdrawal of troops from 150+ countries and regions in the world, over a period of time. Of course this would anger many who believe the United States has a moral reason for being the world’s policeman, but this would not just end there. As President, Paul would have to go with what Congress voted in terms of going to war. If there is support, as my neoconservative friends say there is, amongst the population of the United States, do you really think it would be that hard to get Congress to make a formal declaration of war against nations that have possibly shown an aggressive stance towards the United States?
I myself would not see a need to wage war in any situation except a direct, State-sanctioned attack on United States soil. This means an active State waging an active war against the United States.
Should the People give Congress a reason to wage war, the President is in no position to deny it (except by veto power, but we have to assume that the Constitution was written to provide for the opportunity of a Declaration of War if a vast majority of Congress supported it). The process is simple enough: Congress makes a formal declaration in numbers that would override a veto. Paul would be Commander in Chief, and as he believes in the Constitution, it would be his job to follow Congress’ management and financing of said war.
While I won’t support such a war, it would be a “win-win” situation for the Constitution and the neoconservatives: the war would be formally declared, we would have a definitive vote on who voted for and against the formal declaration, and we’d have a President who who wage the war in a way to speed up victory and reduce the risk of military and civilian deaths significantly.
Since we don’t have any active declarations by Congress, today’s wars are mismanaged, overextended, and inefficient because there is no consensus by the People, by Congress and by the Executive branch. A formal declaration would fix many of these problems, giving all parties in the action a strong reason to get in, get the job done, and get out.
Again, I don’t support war for any reason, but I do understand the Constitutional requirements that the United States runs by. I think there are peaceful market solutions for aggressive nations, and while I do support a significantly smaller State, I do see the power of the Constitution in reducing the ills that are caused by a too powerful State.
Related posts:
- Ron Paul and H.R. 2956: Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act
- An Anarcho-capitalist on Ron Paul, Part 1: He’s not anti-war
- Balance of Powers: How Ron Paul might be able to bring it back
- Why Ron Paul should be President: Executive Order July 17, 2007
- How can an anti-voting anarcho-capitalist support Ron Paul?
- Best Ron Paul photo/article ever
- Letting foreigners donate to campaigns
- A lesson from Ron Paul: Get mad now, don’t back down.
- I am now President of the U.S.A. So are you.
- Ron Paul at New Hampshire
As President, Paul would have to go with what Congress voted in terms of going to war. If there is support, as my neoconservative friends say there is, amongst the population of the United States, do you really think it would be that hard to get Congress to make a formal declaration of war against nations that have possibly shown an aggressive stance towards the United States?
This is one thing I think anti-Paulians are really missing. Ron Paul is not pacifist, anti-war, or weak. If America needed defending from a real threat, I think he’d be the first to support it. He would not lock himself in office and leave the troops sitting idly if an enemy actually attacked.
This is one thing I think anti-Paulians are really missing. Ron Paul is not pacifist, anti-war, or weak. If America needed defending from a real threat, I think he’d be the first to support it. He would not lock himself in office and leave the troops sitting idly if an enemy actually attacked.
Exactly. We also have to understand that any sort of attack would be extremely well defended by “militias” (basically groups of individuals in every community) moreso than even an organized military.
As Paul said, if the airlines were allowed to set up their own defenses, legally, 9/11 likely would not have happened. I know we can’t be armchair Commander-in-Chiefs over such a tragedy, but for me it makes much more sense to let pilots be armed (and let passengers know if the airline supports such protections) than to force the airlines to submit to a central authority for security when we see that even today the security is more inept than productive.
It is about time to develop a realistic plan for defense than it is to put hope in any bureaucracy, even a market-based one. I think I’d put more faith in my armed neighbors than I do in the armed forces, or a private army a la Blackwater or one run by Allstate.
Hello webmaster…I Googled for war, but found your page about Ron Paul: fighting a war in Iran…and have to say thanks. nice read.