Rand Paul Sorta Goes to War

T

twomp

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
5,083
I was always made a little bit nervous every time I heard Ron Paul – and other libertarians – inveigh against the modern practice of going to war without a formal declaration of war. Well, yes, it’s unconstitutional, and, yes, process is important, but what made me uneasy is that I was always worried someone would actually take Ron up on his suggestion – that is, introduce a formal declaration of war. And when my worst fears were finally confirmed, and someone did introduce just such a resolution, wouldn’t you know it would be Ron’s son – Sen. Rand Paul!

Okay, I totally get what Sen. Paul is trying to do. As the New York Times report on Sen. Paul’s resolution puts it:

"Mr. Paul, a likely presidential candidate who has emerged as one of the Republican Party’s most cautious voices on military intervention, offered a very circumscribed definition of war in his proposal, which he outlined in an interview on Saturday. He would, for instance, limit the duration of military action to one year and significantly restrict the use of ground forces."

Well, yes, but there are several problems with Sen. Paul’s resolution. To begin with, the junior Senator from Kentucky claims a state of war exists because

"The Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to our diplomatic facilities in the region, including our Embassy, in Baghdad, Iraq, and our consulate in Erbil, Iraq."

Sen. Paul is here establishing a whole new principle: the rather loopy idea that we are compelled to go to war whenever one of our "diplomatic facilities" is endangered. Which means we should’ve declared war on Iran when they took over our Tehran embassy in 1979 – and bombed the heck out of the Egyptians when they besieged our Cairo embassy in 2012. If we attacked every country where our embassy or consulate has been surrounded with threatening protesters screaming "Yankee Go Home!" we’d have invaded the whole of South America and half of Asia by this time.

There’s absolutely nothing in Paul’s resolution that justifies a declaration of war. Nor is there any attempt to show how the Islamic State represents a "clear and present danger" to the US: indeed, this claim is plainly comical, rather like an elephant being brought to its knees on account of the intimidating presence of a fearsome mouse.

One wonders if it occurred to the geniuses advising Sen. Paul that a formal declaration of war by the US against the Islamic State would be a huge propaganda victory for the jihadists. After all, we haven’t taken such a step since World War II: do we really want to elevate this makeshift "Caliphate" to the status of a threat on the order of Hitler and the Axis powers? It seems to me that the very people the Paul campaign wants to impress – the diplomatic-intelligence community – are bound to be appalled by the very idea of it.
Click to expand...

read the rest here:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/11/25/rand-paul-sorta-goes-to-war/
 
Also in it:
...
In introducing this resolution, Sen. Paul is missing an important point: a declaration of war is an emotional signpost as well as a constitutional requirement. It is a people declaring not only that a state of hostilities exists but also that they intend to fight it through to the very end. That’s why the self-limiting language in Paul’s war resolution will never stand the test of time – because wars don’t recognize limits. Once started, a conflict tends to spread, ignoring national borders and increasing in intensity.

Once war is formally declared, the goal is victory – but how will we know when we’ve won the war against the Islamic State? When their "Caliphate" is no more? When the Sunni insurgency against the central government in Baghdad comes to an end? Paul’s declaration expires after a year – but that doesn’t mean it can’t be renewed, with the limits on ground troops edited out.
...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If this article cannot be in the Rand Paul subforum then it should be in General Politics, in my opinion. This is a very reasonable article discussing some of the issues with Rand Paul's proposal.
 
The author misses the point that the point of this vote is to get members of Congress on record and returning the power to declare war back to Congress (and away from the President). The shortsighted potential "losses" are far outweighed by the long-term potential gains.
 
Massachusetts said:
The author misses the point that the point of this vote is to get members of Congress on record and returning the power to declare war back to Congress (and away from the President). The shortsighted potential "losses" are far outweighed by the long-term potential gains.
Click to expand...
Massachusetts, with all due respect, the people quite probably would support a declaration of war. Most would be lulled by the limiting language and the fact of a lack of ground troops. What they do not know is that ground troops are there already, it would be extended after a year of propaganda, and that even giving an inch in this matter is foolish and shortsighted.

This is even besides the point of: How is ISIS going to be eliminated within a year? They could lay low for that long. A deadline in war shows that the war is not worth fighting. It is ridiculous to even offer it. Bombing alone could not defeat ISIS. The generals are saying how many tens of thousands of troops are needed? Not simply in Iraq but in Syria. The toppling of Assad, which is the real purpose of this intervention, will turn Damascus into a hotbed of Jihadist activity. The Christian population will be further turned to permanent refugees. These are not short term cons but long term considerations. Another intervention could possibly destroy the dollar.

Offer a bill to repeal the War Powers Resolution. Is that too much to ask? Offer a bill to repeal the AUMF of '01. Don't offer a bill to declare war on a bunch of rag tag Jihadists. For one, every time the leader is assassinated another will step up to fill the vacuum, it's unwinnable. It's not a traditional country that can be overpowered by sheer figures of death and power. Civilians will be killed by the scores for every 'leader' captured or killed, neighbors will be telling on neighbors to settle land disputes, and many, many, more atrocities will be committed.

It also waters down what a Declaration of War is supposed to mean. Imminent danger? There is none. Fuck that embassy. It shouldn't be there and as well, the people there know the risks.
 
Ron tried making declarations of war acts too, but he could never get it out of committee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top