Topic: Ron Paul
John McCain vs. Ron Paul: The arguments for just War A discussion of the ongoing war to form opinions, and to predict the likely consequences of continuing it.by Chad_Underdonk
(Libertarian)
Monday, February 4, 2008
I think many of the McCainanites are good Americans, but are just a bit too hopped up on the jingoism. My opinion is that our troops are now the lesser targets in Iraq today because we shoot back, not because of a lack of violence. Iraq has devolved into a civil war because of outside influences that we did not invite or control. All American involvement can do is prolong the agony of that civil war. Our continued involvement is the equivalent of putting two tomcats into a sack and then putting your hand between them to try to stop them from fighting. They are going to continue fighting and you're just going to get cut up trying.
Martin Luther King Jr. spoke out against Vietnam..."And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine messianic force, to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America,
"You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God."...and that message still rings true today.
Last year John McCain answered a reporters question about Iraq by singing "Bomb Iran" to the toon of The Beachboys "Barbara Ann". John McCain has the desire (or willpower to use his word) to confront Iran. The neo-cons whispering in his ears tell him that it will be much easier to confront Radical Islam if we can control that whole section of central Asia. Actualization of those notions will start a 3rd World War. Because at that point we will be fighting in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and if you haven't noticed, they are three contiguous countries. Together they probably make up an area that equals a signifcant portion of the size of the continental United States. To top it off the Russians are getting wilder eyed the more we put troops near their borders. We are effectively conducting warfare in their equivalent of Mexico. This too will eventually cause unintended consequences.
It is NOT about American honor. For our honor to be served we have to target terrorists, not act in preemptive wars against nations who cannot physically threaten us. Why do we confront nations that might get WMDs because they are dangerous, but ignore the ones we know to be dangerous that have WMDs? Could it be we are afraid to take on someone who can actually hurt us? Are we simply the playground bullies of the world? Is that honorable? We faced down the Soviets who had thousands of ICBMs pointed at us, I think we can militarily handle any country's armed forces with one hand behind our back. There is simply no need to conquer others to protect ourselves.
It is NOT about the honor of our troops. Our troops overwhelmingly donate more to anti-war candidate Congressman Paul, or to a lesser extent Senator Obama, than anyone else running for President. The troops want out of a senseless war. The vast majority of them signed up to protect America, or to punish terrorist. But on the foreign battle grounds the Troops know the truth. We are causing people to hate us, and we are creating a massive Petri dish for true international terrorists to train and recruit from. We are letting our boys and girls get blown to bits because we cannot admit that we made a major policy mistake in going into Iraq and are not now acting in a responsible and ethical manner to correct that. We should be using our Special Operations troops to fight the enemy on their own battlefield, that of asymmetric warfare. When we attacked Afghanistan we had the right idea, help those fighting the Taliban to deny safe haven to the terrorists. That tactic was successful, but then we had a policy flip-flop and decided we should conduct nation-building rather than bringing Bin-Laden to justice. This is a bad policy, and not one that the American people agree with. Admitting our mistakes and correcting them is always a wiser course than acting as if we are guiltless and furthering the animosity of conflict.
It is NOT about American safety. The Afghani Mujahideen did not attack Russia once they ended their war in the 80s, neither will the terrorists today. They do not hate our way of life, but they do hate the way we try to force our way of life and other policies upon them. Speaking of Russia, they gave up on their Afghanistan War because they were bankrupt from financing an empire at war. We are currently conducting a worldwide crusade to beat "Islamo-Fascism" while concurrently subsidizing the protection of former enemies from a war that was being fought 65 years ago. This is having a tremendous toll on our economy that will eventually, sooner or later, cause our empire to collapse the same way that the USSR did. Our military will become weak and under-funded, and we will be selling off chunks of our military machine to try to and earn international hard currency that will keep our government afloat. Our embittered enemies will certainly be gloating. And we will have made enemies between now and then who might still be embittered enough to kick us while we are down. That does not sound like the path to American Safety.
It is NOT about defending our Afghani/Iraqi allies. Yes, we are responsible for foolishly and unconstitutionally conducting preemptive war and nation building that deposed the legitimate government of Iraq; a government that did not support non-nation-state terrorism. We have tried to give our Afghani/Iraqi allies the opportunity to rebuild their countries with our help, but a significant portion of them WILL NOT support a government that they view as puppets of America. Who are we to determine what is right for a foreign people? We cannot control the destiny of another nation; we can guide them, we can support them, we can be an example. But trying to control them will only cause our bankruptcy and their agony. They must be given self-determination if their civil war is ever going to end. Once their civil war ends, we can choose to monetarily help them rebuild.
Without a true policy change, sooner or later we will have to leave those civil wars. They will eventually make the war in Vietnam look like 'the good old days' of limited warfare. While we stay there, the civil wars may not boil over but they will perpetually simmer on. Eventually the American people will throw their hands up and say 'enough', an administration will agree, and the Afghani and Iraqi (and maybe Iranian) people will hear their version of "I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas" over their radio waves like the Vietnamese heard in Saigon during April 1975. It would be far better for all concerned if this policy change happened sooner rather than later.
When I first started listening to Dr. Paul I disagreed that we should shut down our overseas empire. But the more I listened, the more I began to see his reasoning. We are truly making enemies in the world today. We are truly alienating our friends. We are financing foreign governments who then ignore our desires, but why should we be trying to buy our way into influence in the first place?
Dr. Paul voted to go into Afghanistan, if you read what I wrote above you would see that I think our policy-makers drifted off course and failed to chase Osama Bin-Laden as we were told they would. Twice now, Dr. Paul has put forth legislation to invoke the Letters of Marque and Reprisal that are the Constitutional way to deal with non-nation-state enemies. In the early days of our country nations often employed Privateers to wreak havoc on the shipping of enemy nation states, this allowed a country to improve their ability to deal with theats without invoking full blown war and invasion. By invoking the Letters of Marque and Reprisal today we could politically empower our Special Forces, Mercenaries, or anyone else who sought Congressional approval the ability to chase terrorists across borders and get them no matter where they hide.
Additionally Dr. Paul wants to dismantle the majority of our overseas military bases. We have more than 700 bases in 130 countries today. We should bring our troops home to defend American soil. If a terrorist organization ever does employ a WMD on our soil our military is the only trained, competent, and well organized force which could handle the situation. Imagine how much better off the New Orleans victims of Katrina would have been if the 101st Air Assault Division based at Ft Campbell, KY (only a few hundred miles away) had been home and able to deploy their thousands of men and hundreds of helicopters. This illustrates a good reason why our troops should be here, and not overseas.
Lastly our troops are very much losing their edge in lengthy repetitive deployments, we cannot recruit soldiers fast enough, and our equipment is getting destroyed or worn out. This is causing a massive toll on military readiness, and on our economy as a whole. Soon we may be picking a fight in Iran, at that point we will have to re-instate a draft to cover the requirements of a three country 3rd World War. The draft coupled with a massive breakdown in our financial security may well be a death-blow to the American Republic and the Freedom it represents.
Please, consider what I've said here, and research Dr. Paul to make your own conclusions. Our great country deserves nothing less.
Respectfully,
Chad Underdonk
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 9 thumbs so far
2008 Chad_Underdonk, all rights reserved.
Published: Monday, February 4, 2008
Last modified: Monday, February 4, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Chad_Underdonk only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Chad_Underdonk is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
part of our recruitment problems happen because we have more restrictions on who can serve than we did years ago. Today you need a High School diploma to enlist. It is rediculous. We have the worlds greatest and most trained military, yet we still have people in America that think that our troops have failed in Iraq.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-02-04 11:35:49
Statist
Again you are wrong the requirements have been greatly reduced to meet the need. Soldiers do not have to pass a PT test or the height and weight standard to get out of Basic or AIT. You are thinking of Clinton policy to shrink the Army.
No we do not have the best trained and equipped military in the World anymore. Soldiers are tired of this false war, that is why you can become a Non Commissioned Officer with 2 years of service. All of the experienced mid level managers E-5 thru o-4 are leaving, crating a very dangerous void. The troops havent failed, the policy that got us here is the failure. Support our troops not the policy.
OBTW if all the troops support the War, how come Dr. Paul received more donations thatn all the other Republican combined and only lost outraising all candidates including the Dems by $27K. But hey the troops want to be there and think this war is just and working.
LIBERTY or DEATH
It's about soldiers fighting for oil and drugs and the middle class are flipping the bill. The poppy fields are alive and well in afganistan now that the taliban are out and the war lords are back and the CIA are happy. Haliburton and Cheney/Bush are laughing all the way to the bank. As long as you keep driving your 8 cylinder cars to the corner stores, then you are for the wars and the American empire because with China and India wanting to manufacturer cheap affordable cars and 2 billion people waiting for them...the US needs a buffer between them and the oil so they can control the supply and sale of it. Chinese know that if the US keeps going like this, the US will declare bankruptcy, meanwhile China is funding the war as well to get some of the oil once Hiliburton makes the pipelene through Pakistan to China.The US has 5% of the world populationa now uses 25% of the world's resources. Do the math and it all starts to make sence. The US has to get away from oil dependancy and must stop the War on Drugs
E4 and O4 is the level that most people leave the military at. Immagine if it were people with 15-17 years of experience leaving. (which won't happen). If you reenlist once you are more likely to do the whole 20 and retire. Also the military is paid more today then they have ever been paid before, reenlistment bonuses are higher than ever, and so many people are reenlisting in the army that very few of them are making E5 unless thier MOS is undermanned. I didn't say that all soldiers were for the war, just that the ones who were against it were donating the most money to Ron Paul. Not every servicemember gets himself involved with politics. Most of the servicemembers I know are more concerned about thier car, house, or bike rather than who wins the next election. Why else are payday loan companies attacked? Those soldiers certainly aren't getting them so that they can donate to Ron Paul's campaign.
IMO Paul's belief in 'just war' is just another example of how his libertarianism is undermined by a dangerous religious fanaticism which disqualifies him as a viable presidential candidate.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-02-04 14:44:46
Being I have been in or intimately working for the Army since 1989 and currnetly have 5 soldiers standing in my office I think I can shed some first hand knowledge to you. People with 15-17 years TIS are leaving in droves, minus the ones that have been institutionalized or truly love the Army (I fall into the later that is why I am still here) If you currently have greater than 20 years TIS the Army wont let you retire, even if you have a retirement date. I have a MSG in my office with 27 years TIS and has been stop lossed since 2001. I did 14 and got out b/c it was not the Army I signed up for. Soldiers have little discipline, Privates talk to SGMs as buddy or bro. As of now the Army is promoting people to SSG or E6 based on time in rank not on merit/promotion board system. The average E%in the Army has less than 3 years time in service. I have a SSG in my office right now that made E6 in less than 3 1/2 years. Duh they are getting paid more now, the COLA or cost of living allowance goes up every year regardless, except one year under Clinton, so your point is what? Wonder why recruitment bonuses are so much? To entice you into joining b.c you dont have shit else to do on the outside. To say all soldiers spend their money on is cars is highly offensive, as it connotates that soldiers are politically ignorant motorheads. You my friend (As the boot you lick says) are sorely mistaken. Granted someone on the FOB in Kuwait or Dijuboudi that you might have been on ones told you these things, yet I bet they nor you have spent any real time outside the wire. For you to speak for soldiers, when the soldiers actions are contrary to your words says alot. Find any soldier that has been blown up and ask them if the Iraqi people and our POLICY was worth it.
These men and women are not cowards, but they are not ignorant either. They have to live every day with the crap foriegn policy you and the other neo-cons so strongly endorse.
Pay day loan companies? How come soldiers e-4 and below qualify for food stamps. They dont make payday loans to donate, they do that to spend money they dont have, kinda like our govt.
LIBERTY or DEATH
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Chad_Underdonk, all rights reserved.