Supporting the War Instead of the Troops
by Ron Paul
Last week, Congress debated a resolution [H. Con Res 248] directing the President to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan no later than the end of this year. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress, so it is clearly appropriate for Congress to assert its voice on matters of armed conflict. In recent decades, however, Congress has defaulted on this most critical duty, essentially granting successive presidents the unilateral (and clearly unconstitutional) power to begin and end wars at will. This resolution was not expected to pass; however, the ensuing debate and floor vote served some very important purposes.
First, it was important to finally have an actual floor debate on the merits and demerits of continuing our involvement in the conflict in Afghanistan. Most congressional action regarding Afghanistan has concerned continued funding for the conflict. Thus, members of Congress have cloaked their support for an increasingly unpopular war in terms of financial support of the troops. But last week’s resolution had nothing to do with funding or defunding the war, but rather dealt directly with the wisdom of an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops (and hundreds of billions of tax dollars) in Afghanistan. Members opposing the resolution had to make their case for the ongoing loss of American lives as well as the huge expenditures required for an intractable conflict.
In my opinion, this was an impossible case to make.
Supporters of the war made the same intellectually weak arguments for continuing our occupation of a nation with a long and bloody history of resisting foreign occupation. Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 in the aftermath of Vietnam. It was intended to prevent presidents from slipping this country so easily into unwinnable wars, wars with indistinct enemies and vague goals. Unfortunately, it has had the opposite effect by literally legalizing undeclared wars for 90 days. In the case of Afghanistan, 90 days has stretched into nearly a decade. The original purpose of the initial authorization of force – to pursue those responsible for the attacks on September 11 – is no longer applicable. Al Qaeda has left Afghanistan; we are now pursuing the Taliban, who never attacked us. The Taliban certainly are not our friends, but the more of them we kill, the more their ranks grow and the stronger they become. Meanwhile, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan and accelerating our plunge toward national bankruptcy. Whose interests do we serve by continuing this exercise in futility?
Osama Bin Laden has said many times that his strategy was to bankrupt America, by forcing us into protracted fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union learned this lesson the hard way; and ultimately was forced to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in defeat and humiliation. This same fate may await us unless we rethink our policy and resist any escalation of our military efforts in Afghanistan. Our troops should be used for defending our country, making us safer and stronger at home – not for occupying foreign nations with no real strategy or objective.
Recent Comments
3:56 pm: "William: ” Liberty and justice for all” applies to US citizens. If we have to pay more for..." - Lindsey
3:32 pm: "Dfens: Should China have to float their currency like we do? Should we float our currency or quit doing..." - Lindsey
3:23 pm: "Dfens: What does your article on people in China getting lead poisoning have to do with Ron Paul? Do you..." - Lindsey
1:54 pm: "You nuts would lower US trade barriers to zero while letting China increase tariffs and..." - Fred the Protectionist
1:53 pm: "Your anarchist views of free trade is worse than NAFTA/CAFTA/WTO. No retaliation, no..." - Fred the Protectionist
1:44 pm: "Didn’t think so" - longshotlouie
1:43 pm: "More projection from our resident statists. They screwed up passing these so-called ‘free..." - longshotlouie
1:40 pm: "More projection from the statists. It was your ilk that proposed and passed these so-called..." - longshotlouie
3:00 pm: "Yeah, in terms of economics i would agree with you on this. For the most part i am in full agreement with..." - David
2:13 pm: "Mr. longshotlui, if noncredit money is emitted according to the cited formula, inflation cannot..." - stojan nenadovic
1:57 pm: "Libertarian ideology empowers the banking industry. Pat yourselves on the back." - Fred the Protectionist
1:56 pm: "IF there is an increase in money supply then the effects would be increased prices AND..." - Fred the Protectionist
1:36 pm: "You are still confusing yourself. Have you decided whether there has been inflation, or not?" - longshotlouie
2:49 pm: "I’m so easily terrified? Your logic escapes me. I didn’t support the $700billion TARP..." - Libertarian777
2:41 pm: "If you read the whole of 1984 he is not saying what you’ve stated. Also, if you want to..." - Libertarian777
2:00 pm: "War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength Obviously you missed the point..." - Fred the Protectionist
1:33 pm: "Read the War Powers Act, then come back for a discussion." - longshotlouie
1:31 pm: "I’m going to have to assume that the response was for Dfens. Since I was there, it could not..." - longshotlouie
1:26 pm: "Is it like your fear of cavemen without a standing army, navy, or air force?" - longshotlouie
2:17 pm: "I am seriously considering some civil disobedience regarding the census. I believe that our president and..." - Susan