The Trouble With Unconstitutional Wars
Listen to Ron Paul deliver these remarks here.
Our foreign policy was in the spotlight last week, which is exactly where it should be. Almost two years ago many voters elected someone they thought would lead us to a more peaceful, rational co-existence with other countries. However, while attention has been focused on the administration’s disastrous economic policies, its equally disastrous foreign policies have exacerbated our problems overseas. Especially in times of economic crisis, we cannot afford to ignore costly foreign policy mistakes. That’s why it is important that U.S. foreign policy receive some much needed attention in the media, as it did last week with the leaked documents scandal.
Many are saying that the WikiLeaks documents tell us nothing new. In some ways this is true. Most Americans knew that we have been fighting losing battles. These documents show just how bad it really is. The revelation that Pakistani intelligence is assisting the people we are bombing in Afghanistan shows the quality of friends we are making with our foreign policy. This kind of thing supports points that Rep. Dennis Kucinich and I tried to make on the House floor last week with a privileged resolution that would have directed the administration to remove troops from Pakistan pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.
We are not at war with Pakistan. Congress has made no declaration of war. (Actually, we made no declaration of war on Iraq or Afghanistan either, but that is another matter.) Yet we have troops in Pakistan engaging in hostile activities, conducting drone attacks and killing people. We sometimes manage to kill someone who has been identified as an enemy, yet we also kill about 10 civilians for every 1 of those. Pakistani civilians are angered by this, yet their leadership is mollified by our billions in bribe money. We just passed an appropriations bill that will send another $7.5 billion to Pakistan. One wonders how much of this money will end up helping the Taliban. This whole operation is clearly counterproductive, inappropriate, and immoral, and every American who values the rule of law should be outraged. Yet these activities are being done so quietly that most Americans, as well as most members of the House, don’t even know about them.
We should follow constitutional protocol when going to war. It is there for a reason. If we are legitimately attacked, it is the job of Congress to declare war. We then fight the war, win it, and come home. War should be efficient, decisive, and rare. However, when Congress shirks its duty and just gives the administration whatever it wants with no real oversight or meaningful debate, wars are never-ending, wasteful, and political. Our so-called wars have become a perpetual drain on our economy and liberty.
The founders knew that heads of state are far too eager to engage in military conflicts. That is why they entrusted the power to go to war with the deliberative body closest to the people – the Congress. Decisions to go to war need to be supported by the people. War should not be covert or casual. We absolutely should not be paying off leaders of a country while killing their civilians without expecting to create a lot of new problems. This is not what America is supposed to be about.
Read more by Rep. Ron Paul
- What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi – May 13th, 2013
- Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston – April 28th, 2013
- Congress Exploits Our Fears to Take Our Liberty – April 21st, 2013
- Why Can’t We All Travel To Cuba? – April 15th, 2013
- Neo-Con War Addiction Threatens Our Future – March 24th, 2013





JLS
August 3rd, 2010 at 4:53 am
"Our foreign policy was in the spotlight last week, which is exactly where it should be. "
Yea but only after they finished doing the amazing "Lindsay Lohan is still in jail' story
E. A. Costa
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
How about the trouble with Congressmen who don't move or support impeaching Presidents and Vice Presidents, like Bush and Cheney, who lie the US into unconstitutional wars?
You had a signal opportunity to be what you mouth, Ron Paul, and you blew it royally.
victor
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Ron Paul is that "voice in the wilderness." He is practically alone and that reveals how controlled this Country has become.
E. A. Costa
August 3rd, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Ah, Ron Paul, "the Great Constitutionalist" who left Kucinich crying in the wilderness when he moved to impeach Cheney, then Bush (in that order).
Impeachment IS the principal remedy to unconstitutional conduct by the Executive, little boys.
Moreover, the original design, that the Vice President be the candidate with the second highest number of votes, is toward the same end.
But Ron Paul, who rushed to impeach Clinton–according to his own words for the wrong reason–was more interested in "saving the Republican Party"–again his own words–under Bush and Cheney.
He was also quite satisfied with what was left over from his $35 million in campaign donations, wasn't he?
plumbob
August 3rd, 2010 at 3:07 pm
While it is true that all wars should be declared by congress per the constitution, it is also true that the American people have become so victimized by establishment propaganda until they would have voted for these wars anyway. When Afghanistan was invaded at least 80 % of the American people were in favor of the invasion, and when Iraq was invaded, more than 60 % of the American people believed Sadam Hussein had WMD and was behind 9-1-1. As long as the American people remain captive to main stream propaganda, it makes no difference whether or not the Constitution is followed, because the results are going to be the same either war.
janeblakenship
August 3rd, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Unconstitutional killings, how about that?
Jane
William W. Wexler
August 3rd, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Dr. Paul, you lost me when you threw in the cheap shot about the Administration's "administration’s disastrous economic policies". The economic crisis is a separate issue in every way except that it was Bush/Cheney's disastrous and illegal invasion of Iraq that paved the way for it.
Just as it took 8 years of GOP compliance to twist the knife into America's foreign policy, it's stupid and unforgivable for you to blast Obama's war policy because the wars haven't turned around on a dime. What do you think this is, a MacDonald's where you can just snap your fingers and you get more fries?
I used to have some respect for you because of your anti-war positions. However, I have begun to think that you are a political opportunist and you have your nose in the wind at all times, trying to determine when it's changing.
Duglarri
August 3rd, 2010 at 6:48 pm
To Mr. Wexler: Mr. Paul is nothing if not a model of consistency. Of course he considers Obama's economic policy to be a disaster- if you look into his work, he's said the same thing about every President since Woodrow Wilson. And by his principles, he's absolutely right. A two trillion dollar deficit this year alone? How is that not a disaster?
And as far as unfair to blast Obama's war policies- well, his policies are indistinguishable from Bush's policies. Could Obama as a new President have called off both wars? Yes, of course he could have. In fact, that's what he was elected to do. He won because people hoped he would bring the troops home.
And as far as being an opportunist, well, what opportunity have these positions opened for Dr. Paul? He says the same things he's always said: bring the boys home, follow the Constitution, eliminate the Federal Reserve. What kind of opportunism is it to persistently say things that get him labelled as some kind of a (principled) whacko? Talk about crying in the wilderness.
The Sad Truth about the Afghan Forever War -- Can You Handle It? - Stormfront
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:28 pm
[...] Re: The Sad Truth about the Afghan Forever War — Can You Handle It? The Trouble With Unconstitutional Wars by Rep. Ron Paul — Antiwar.com [...]
William W. Wexler
August 3rd, 2010 at 9:17 pm
The Libertarian approach is a simple-minded and antiquated view that doesn't mesh with the reality of the modern world very much if at all. It doesn't account for the nuclear umbrella, the working poor, an economy that's evolved beyond family farms and Davy Crockett. It doesn't account for the electric grid, the Interstate system, public schools and universities, municipal water systems, or even railroads. None of those things would be here if libertarians had their way, it would all be a mish-mash of fiefdoms run by whoever was the most alpha MALE of the group.
So yes, he is an opportunist, and his target is people who don't think things through enough to know where their bread is buttered or where it even came from. Libertarians make the most simplistic crap sound like it would work when we are way down the road from those days and you know what, good riddance.
He's blaming Obama for his economic policies as if the President has a magic wand that can fix things from the last 8 years or the last 98 years or whatever he says should be fixed. I am not happy with the way Obama's policies look from the outside, but it was ready to collapse in January 2009 and he's kept it going so far. There are a lot of systemic problems that can't be resolved by drastic measures, like, for instance, ending the Fed or eliminating income taxes, both things Paul would love to see.
Obama says he's on track to draw down in Iraq and has a schedule to do so in Afghanistan. Again, I would have liked to see Iraq end in 2006 and I don't think we should have escalated in Afghanistan, but pulling the plug does what exactly? What's Mr. Paul's Bright Idea if the Taliban gets a nuke from Pakistan and decides to detonate it somewhere where lots of infidels live?
I used to say that Obama's war policies were the same as Bushes but consider this: he isn't the person who lied us into the wars. He's not the person who circumvented the Constitutional procedure. He's the guy who inherited those wars from the guy who did. There's a big difference.
Matthew Stephen Rogers
August 4th, 2010 at 1:16 am
As a hard leftist Obamabots who suddenly endorse war when done by Dims disgust me every bit as much as the Repig-lie-con Bushies did. Partisan based relativism sucks. Although I disagree with Dr. Paul on economic issues I very much appreciate his principled defense of a non-interventionist foreign policy.
dedreckon
August 4th, 2010 at 2:05 am
Another Obama apologist eh?
William W. Wexler
August 4th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Not in the least. I worked on his campaign in Iowa during the caucus and left shortly after, I think it was April or so. I ended up working for Nader's campaign, which we considered to be a success within the constraints of the rigged 2 party system. I did not vote for Obama, which was difficult because in many ways I wanted to, but I believe you have a responsibility to determine who the best qualified candidate for the job would have been and I decided it was Nader.
What I don't like is simplistic cheap shots. Dr. Paul knows exactly what a cheap shot is, and I used to think he at least had enough personal honor to not engage in them especially after the number he's drawn. But maybe that's like asking the Mormons to have empathy for LGBT marriage because of their experience with polygamy.
I used to regard Libertarians as quaint, well-meaning people who longed for a simpler time before all those pesky government regulations. You know the people… it's those who had all the pages about the Gilded Age, Standard Oil, Teapot Dome, the Robber Barons, Muckrakers, all those pages ripped out of their history books. Now I think they're part of some grassroots(LOL) movement where the end result if everything goes according to plan is that the GOP will take over congress and the WH and things will ACTUALLY be like they were during 8 years of Bush… but this time with a vengeance, because in order to reverse "reparations for slavery" (heath care reform) they're going to have some makin' up to do.
If you wear a hat with teabags on it or associate with people who do, please just grow up and read some American history about the age of unfettered capitalism. It's already been tried. Didn't work. That's how we got here.
William W. Wexler
August 4th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
You haven't been paying attention.
I'm not an Obamabot. I didn't even vote for him.
Your ad hominem bullshit is out of line, Matthew.
William W. Wexler
August 5th, 2010 at 2:10 am
You have a full quiver of ad hominems, Matthew.
Come back and talk to me when you've exhausted them and you want to start talking some common sense.
Lucy Richards
August 6th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Ron doesn't always have both oars in the water (e.g., on economic and immigration issues he appears unable to discriminate between good and bad information), but in this case he's close to the mark. It's so rare that a politician comes so close to getting it right these days, so in this case, let's give credit where credit is due.