“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”
- James Madison

A speech before the US House of Representatives on July 1, 2010

In January 1991, we went to war in the Middle East against Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s dictator who was our ally during the Iran-Iraq war. A border dispute between Kuwait and Iraq broke out after our State Department gave a green light for Hussein’s invasion.

After Iraq’s successful invasion of Kuwait we reacted with gusto and have been militarily involved in the entire region, six thousand miles from our shores, ever since. This has included Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. After twenty years of killing and a couple trillion dollars wasted, not only does the fighting continue with no end in sight, but our leaders threaten to spread our bombs of benevolence on Iran.

For most Americans, we are at war — at war against a tactic called terrorism, not a country.

This allows our military to go any place in the world without limits as to time or place.

But how can we be at war? Congress has not declared war as required by the Constitution.

That is true, but our presidents have and Congress and the people have not objected. Congress obediently provides all the money requested for the “war.”

People are dying, bombs are dropped, our soldiers are shot at and killed.

Our soldiers wear uniforms; our enemies do not. They are not part of any government. They have no planes, no tanks, no ships, no missiles, and no modern technology.

What kind of a war is this anyway? If it really is one. If it was a real war we would have won it by now.

Our stated goal since 9/11 has been to destroy al Qaeda. Was al Qaeda in Iraq? Not under Saddam Hussein. Our leaders lied us into invading Iraq and deceived us into occupying Afghanistan.

There’s still really no al Qaeda in Iraq and only a hundred or so in Afghanistan, yet there is no end in sight to the “war.” Could there have been other reasons for this war that is not a war?

Military victory in Afghanistan is illusive. Does anyone really know whom we are fighting and why?

Why has the war not ended? Nine years and it continues to spread. Some claim it is to keep America safe, that our soldiers are fighting and dying for our freedom, defending our Constitution. Are we being lied to in order to keep us in this spreading war, just as we were lied to in the 1960′s to keep us in Vietnam?

We own the Iraq government as we do Afghanistan’s. In Afghanistan we are fighting the Taliban-those dangerous people with guns, defending their homeland.

Once they were called the Mujahideen, our old allies, along with Osama bin Laden, in the fight to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan in the 1980′s.

In that effort our CIA funded radical jihad against those nasty foreign occupiers-the Russians.

What gratitude? Those same people now resent our benevolent occupation-with a little violence thrown in.

The resistance to our presence grows as our perseverance wanes.

Our people are waking up but our officials refuse to recognize the longer we stay the greater is the support for those dedicated to the principle that Afghanistan is for Afghans, who resent all foreign occupation.

The harder we fight a war that is not a war, the weaker we get and the stronger becomes our enemy.

When an enemy without weapons can resist an army of great strength, the most powerful of all history, one should ask, who has the moral high ground?

Military failure in Afghanistan is to be our destiny. Changing generals without changing our policies or our policy makers perpetuates our agony and delays the inevitable.

This is not a war that our generals have been trained for. Nation building, police work, social engineering is never a job for foreign occupiers and never an appropriate job for soldiers trained to win wars.

A military victory is no longer even a stated goal of our military leaders or our politicians, as they know that type of victory is impossible.

The sad story is:

This war is against ourselves, our values, our Constitution, our financial well being and common sense, and at the rate we are going, it is going to end badly. What we need are honest leaders with character and a new foreign policy.

Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas

On September 10, 2002  I asked 35 questions regarding war with Iraq. The war resolution passed on October 16, 2002.  Now today, as some of my colleagues try to reestablish credentials regarding spending restraint, I want to call attention to my 18th question from six years ago:

“Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy?  How about an estimated 30 year occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to “build democracy” there?”

Many scoffed at my “radical” predictions at the time, regarding them as hyperbole.  Six years later, I am forced to admit that I was wrong.  My “radical” predictions were in fact, not “radical” enough.

I warned of a draining 30-year occupation.  Now, politicians glibly talk about a 100-year occupation as if it is no big deal.  On cost, according to estimates from the Congressional Research Service, we have already burned through around $550 billion in Iraq, at a rate of about $2 billion per week.  Economist Joseph Stiglitz’s estimates are even higher, at $12 billion a month.  It is a total price tag quickly heading into the trillions, if we don’t stop bombing and rebuilding bridges in Iraq that lead us nowhere but bankruptcy!  Bridges in this country are crumbling along with our economy, while some howl about earmarks.  Earmarks are a drop in the bucket compared to war and occupation.

Yes, I was wrong about Iraq.  I knew it would be bad.  I didn’t know it would be this bad.

The American people deserve better.  Being asked to endorse such a farce is beyond insulting.  Clearly, the rosy predictions of the neo-Conservatives from before the war are not coming true.  Far from it!  With a straight face, one official estimated the TOTAL cost of reconstruction in Iraq would be just $1.7 billion.  Turns out that we spend more than that in ONE WEEK.  Our friends are not pitching in to cover the cost.  Expenses are not being covered by oil from a grateful and liberated Iraqi people.  Rather, big corporate interests are benefitting, the price of oil has more than quadrupled, and the American economy is on its knees and sinking fast.

No one predicted the exact course of this war before it started.  But to continue to listen to the foreign policy advice of those that were the MOST offbase will only lead to more foreign policy disasters.  We need to keep this in mind as we think about Russia, Iran, Cuba and other countries.  Keep in mind – the doomsday predictions on the Iraq War from six years ago, sound like a cakewalk today.  While what leaders in the administration had predicted, reads like a fairytale.  Ask yourself, when listening to the same foreign policy “experts” explaining situations around the world and suggesting policy positions: In light of the facts of today, and the predictions of yesterday, how expert have they shown themselves to be?

Passing HR 2605 to sunset authorization for the use of force in Iraq is the first step to stopping this bloody war, and the consequent bleeding of our treasuries.  Serious fiscal conservatives will support it, as will those who have been paying attention to foreign policy predictions and reality.

Ron Paul is a republican member of congress from Texas.

What will it take to get our troops out of Iraq?   The roughly 70 percent of Americans who are firmly against the war often ask this question.  Those in power are reluctant to give conditions, but when they do and those conditions are met, the goal post is quietly moved.

Voters were promised, passionately and vehemently, that the new Congress would bring our troops home.  Many were explicitly elected in 2006 under that banner.  But our troops are still overseas, funding has been increased even beyond the administration’s wish list, and troop withdrawal has been negotiated away.

When things are going badly in Iraq, they say we must stay until the situation improves.  When things improve, they tell us we must stay because our gains cannot be jeopardized.

We are told that we must establish a functioning democracy there, and train Iraqi armed forces so they can keep order in our absence.  Iraq now has a Constitution, an elected parliament, and hundreds of thousands of security forces.  The problem now is that their troops are supposedly not trained quite well enough, and that could take many more years.  Defining an adequate training level for Iraqi troops is highly nebulous and its anyone’s guess when or how that criteria could be satisfied.

The latest outrage came last week.  For years we heard the administration claim over and over that the Iraqi government wants us there, and is begging us to stay.  On the other hand, all they had to do was ask and we would respect their wishes and leave.  That also has now happened.  Al-Maliki perhaps took his cue from his challenger, al-Sadr, who has been clamouring for us to leave for years.  Popular opinion in Iraq now mirrors that in the United States, with about 70percent of Iraqis wishing us to leave.

At the end of the year, our Status of Forces Agreement expires.  Without a new agreement and understanding with the Iraqi government regarding our presence there, we officially become occupiers.

Eventually our troops will leave Iraq.  The overwhelming will of the people, in both countries, can’t seem to get them out.  Things going well can’t get them out.  Things going badly can’t get them out.  Iraqis telling us to leave can’t get them out.  Perhaps not even the UN can get them out.  My hope is that it does not take the complete collapse of our financial system, but if we don’t leave under any other circumstances, economic chaos is inevitable, and will make it impossible to fund the war, even through debt and inflation.

We have been financing this war through inflation, and attempting to paper over reality with misleading economic indicators.  The government has changed the methodology of calculating things like CPI and GDP to hide the bad news.  They won’t even publish M3, the total money supply statistic anymore.  But reality is hitting the American people at gas pumps and grocery stores, sending more Americans into foreclosure and unemployment lines.  More are hurting while Washington keeps forgetting its promises.  Eventually, this will all come to a head.

Perhaps an even greater fear is that even if our financial trouble doesn’t get our troops out of Iraq, moving them over to fight a new war in Iran, will.  Washington should be crystal clear on this very important point – just getting the troops out of Iraq means nothing.  Bringing them HOME means everything, and that is what the people in both countries demand.

This week, as the American economy continued to suffer the effects of big government, the House attempted to pass two multibillion dollar “emergency” spending bills, one for continued spending on the war in Iraq , and one increasing spending on domestic and international welfare programs.  The plan was to pass these two bills and then send them to the president as one package.

Even though the House failed to pass the war spending bill, opponents of the war should not be fooled into believing this vote signals a long term change in policy.  At the end of the day, those favoring continued military occupation of Iraq  will receive every penny they are requesting and more as long as they agree to dramatically increase domestic and international welfare spending as well.

The continued War in Iraq and the constant state of emergency has allowed Congress to use these so-called “emergency” bills as a vehicle to dramatically increase spending across the board–including spending that does not meet even the most generous definition of emergency.

For example, the spending proposals currently being considered by Congress provide $210 million to the Census Bureau and $4 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.  $4.6 billion is requested for the closing of military bases, but not any of the more than 700 bases overseas – but bases here at home!

Another $387 million would go to various international organizations and $850 million more just in international food aid – all this when food prices are skyrocketing here and American families are having a hard time making ends meet.  Because this spending will be part of “emergency” measures, it will not count against debt ceilings, or any spending limits set by Congressional budget resolutions, and does not have to be offset in any way.

Explosive growth of government is just another tragedy of this war.  The “bipartisan” compromises made in Washington are at the expense of the taxpayer, not in the interest of fiscal responsibility, or peace.  The taxpayer loses and government grows.

The bottom line is that our dollar is falling, the economy is in rough shape, and government spending is wildly out of control.  Congress argues over relatively minor details, instead of dramatically changing our flawed foreign policy.  We need to bring our troops home, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan , but from South Korea , Germany , and the other 138 countries where we have troops stationed.

Our foreign policy of interventionism is not only offensive to others, inviting further terrorist attacks, but it is ruining our economy as we tax, borrow and print the money to pay the bills of our empire.  The economy and ultimately the American people suffer because Washington is refusing to adopt more sensible and constitutional policies.

Squabbling between those who favor increased welfare and those who favor increased warfare has giving the American people a temporary reprieve from having to bear the burden of yet another dramatic increase in government this week.

However, as early as next week a compromise could be reached that expands both government warfare and welfare. As congressional approval ratings drop to 18% according to a recent Gallup poll, the American people are telegraphing that Congress is taking the country in the wrong direction.

Our government must stop bankrupting the country so that we can get back on track to a peaceful, prosperous future.

As reported by the AP (vis CBS News):

Spending to cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year will total nearly $200 billion, according to a budget request the White House will take to Congress next week, making 2008 the most expensive year of those conflicts to date.

The news was first reported by the Los Angeles Times, which cited unnamed Pentagon officials.

The Bush administration has earlier this year said it would need $147.5 billion for fiscal 2008, but the estimates have been raised by another $47 billion. This request is in addition to the Pentagon’s nearly half-trillion annual budget, which omits war spending but covers routine costs, including training, payrolls and weapons procurement.

To keep it simple – that’s over $16 Billion – every single month.  $16 billion that’s taken from you by force and given to the merchants of death – the weapons makers, the contractors, and the like.

A war that can continually be funded through the coercive method of taxation is one that’s not easy to end.

Yet another reason why the income tax needs to go.

From the article:

One of the more morally reprehensible notes from the supporters of death I receive is the one that goes something like this: “I am for peace, too, but not at the expense of my family.” These people are saying that it is okay to ruin my family and thousands of other families in the U.S. who have been torn apart like the bodies of our loved ones to keep other families “safe.” I have news for these people, as bad as the sacrifices have been for some families in America, the people of Iraq have suffered far more for the deceptions and greed of BushCo…

…What makes Mrs. Safety think the Iraqi babies are less precious than her babies? Does the geographic accident of her baby’s births give them more right to be safe than the Iraqi babies? Maybe Mrs. Safety thinks her babies deserve more protection because they are white and Christian? Or just maybe because they are hers?

She’s absolutely right. Long ago, people realized that the “divine right of kings” was morally repugnant; that it’s absurd to accept the idea that, by some accident of birth, certain people have more rights than others. Sadly, this way of thinking is still pervasive in the halls of government, and we see its results in Iraq every day.

Bush and his criminal cohorts in the Republican and Democratic parties seem to think that as long as they can create what we believe to be a “secure” America, that it’s within their rights to violate the most basic rights of men, women and children in other countries. This becomes more and more obvious every day – politicians from both sides overwhelmingly supported the war in Iraq, and much of the recent opposition to it has risen only in response to “failure” or “mismanagement.”

But, this war would be a moral abomination whether it ended in victory or defeat. The problem doesn’t lie in how the war is waged, but in the idea that killing people to achieve political goals is acceptable.

The solution to this madness is not simply a change of course in Iraq (or Afghanistan), but rather a complete change in our point of view. No person has any right, whatsoever, to use aggression to take the life of another.

It is morally acceptable to go after criminals, but it is a crime to kill their families, their friends, their neighbors, or anyone else not criminally complicit. Murder is murder whether it’s committed by a person or a king.

Every person has a right to do what they want with their person or property as long as by doing so they don’t infringe on other people’s rights to do the same. We, as a society, need to start living by that principle – and realize that criminals are criminals whether they’re robbing banks or getting elected.

The interviews and discussions have involved some heated rhetoric about whether or not the “surge” is “working” in Iraq, but at the end of the day, this is just theater, and almost nothing will change.

US Senators are not generally inclined to stand up and oppose the opinions of a General – even if that general is little more than a politicians, like Dave Petreaus is.

I’ve already seen some powerful statistics on both sides of the issue. Everyone from Petraeus to MoveOn.org, to Talking Points Memo have analyzed the “results” of the war escalation.

Debates about this theatrical display will undoubtedly go on for some time. People from all viewpoints will take one side or the other – either the surge is working or it isn’t. Right?

So the politicians and the media present us with two choices. But all this back-and-forth arguing masks the real choice – the third one – the one that’s never talked about in on TV or in Congress.

What’s that, you might ask? Well, it’s quite simple. They never, ever discuss the role of the Constitution, and what it says about how American foreign policy should be conducted.

You see, the 10th Amendment clearly states that any power not specifically listed in the Constitution cannot be exercised by the federal government. Therefore, here’s a couple (of the many) key things that the federal government is doing that is unconstitutional.

• Occupying Iraq. This war was launched without a Congressional Declaration of War as required by the Constitution. Thus, it was illegal from the start, and any talk about troop movements, increases, or reductions is completely irrelevant. An illegal war is illegal – no matter how it’s waged.
• Maintaining Foreign Military Bases. The Constitution permits the “raising” of an army, but nothing, whatsoever, is mentioned about basing an army permanently in countries around the world. The entire US military needs to come home – to protect the United States.

Virtually the entire US foreign policy is in direct violation to the Constitution. It’s all wrong; whether it’s using “foreign aid” to prop up dictators and ruthless regimes, backing coups and assassinations, maintaining a military “presence” in 130+ countries, or waging wars that result in the deaths of millions…..and millions…

The messy bloodbath that is the Iraq war is simply a symptom – a symptom of a nasty disease that’s infected the US government for decades. Until we make some major changes to our foreign policy as a whole, we’re going end up in more and more bloody wars in (not-so-distant?) future.

The war happened because when Bush first indicated his intention to go to war against Iraq, Congress refused to insist on enforcement of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. For more than 200 years, this article has spelled out that Congress — not the president — shall have “the power to declare war.”

Because the Constitution cannot be amended by persistent evasion, this constitutional mandate was not erased by the actions of timid Congresses since World War II that allowed eager presidents to start wars in Vietnam and elsewhere without a “declaration” by Congress.

Nor were the feeble, post-factum congressional resolutions of support of the Iraq invasion — in 2001 and 2002 — adequate substitutes for the formal declaration of war demanded by the founding fathers.

This is the essence of the unconstitutionality of the war in Iraq – and of every war American politicians have waged since World War II – the last time there was a Constitutionally-mandated declaration of war.

POSITIVE GRANT

The Constitution was written under the principle of “positive grant.” This means that the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically listed in the Constitution. This was so important to the founding fathers that they codified it in law as the Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As Cuomo made clear, Article I, Section 8 of states that Congress shall have the “power to declare war.” Nowhere in the Constitution is the Congress given authority to transfer that power to any other person or branch. And, nowhere is the president given the power to declare war either.

AUMF. AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TRANSFER

In 2002, Congress passed the “Authorization to Use Military Force” (AUMF). Although Congress claimed that this legislation “satisfied” the requirements of Article I, Section 8, it did not.

The AUMF was not a declaration of war. It authorized the president to make that decision on his discretion. Thus, the AUMF was a transfer of the war-declaring powers to the excecutive branch – which is clearly not authorized by the Constitution.

In short, what Congress told the president with the passing of the AUMF was “You decide when or if we go to war with Iraq. Just let us know shortly after.”

Therefore, every single member of Congress who voted to transfer this power to the president violated the Constitution. And, the president violated the Constitution by not refusing this illegal transfer of power.

It’s pretty simple. When one branch breaks the law, it’s up to the others to “check” that branch. But, unfortunately, all three branches have been ignoring the plain English of the Constitution for decades.

NO MATTER WHAT

As far as declaring war, James Madison, the “father of the Constitution,” summed it up best:

“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”

It’s in plain English. No right. In any case.

That even includes a situation where the Congress violates the Constitution and transfers its war-declaring powers to the president.

In any case.

No matter what.

Period.

The bitter transatlantic row over Iraq intensified as another key British general lambasted the US for bungling the aftermath of the invasion.

Major General Tim Cross, the most senior UK officer involved in the post-war planning, said Washington’s policy had been “fatally flawed”. He also insisted he had raised serious concerns about the possibility of the country sliding into chaos with Donald Rumsfeld – but the then-US defence secretary “dismissed” the warnings.

Once again, the personalities and the media are concerned with the symptoms of our problems in Iraq – rather than the cause.

Although it seems that the Bush administration has made plenty of mistakes in the handling of Iraq – there are always going to be people who support those decisions. Thus, the debate in the media is generally focused on two sides – proper vs improper handling of the war – but neither actually oppose the war itself….just its handling.

The failures of managing an aggressive war are just the symptom of an inherently flawed foreign policy of aggression, force and war.

The US Constitution was written under “positive grant.” This means that the federal government is authorized to exercise those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution. This was so important to the founders that they codified it in law as the Tenth Amendment.

The war in Iraq was was unconstitutional from the start because it lacked a declaration of war from Congress – as mandated by the Constitution. This has been covered at length in a number of previous posts on this site.

No matter what the politicians or the pundits may tell you, there is nothing, whatsoever, in the Constitution, which authorized the Congress to delegate its war-declaring powers to the Executive Branch.

Undeclared wars are the norm in Washington, and they have been a cancer that’s infected U.S. foreign policy for decades. Mismanagement of these undeclared wars is just an obvious and expected symptom. These symptoms will never go away until the cancer is removed.

Private contractors and other civilians serving with U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan could be subject for the first time to military courts-martial under a new federal provision that legal scholars say is almost certain to spark constitutional challenges.

Challenges?? We the people shouldn’t simply “challenge” but instead, make strong demands to stop this, as such power is an outrage to a free society.

The federal government, because of recruiting shortages, lack of desire, or a multitude of other reasons, doesn’t have enough people in the military to fully service the Iraq theater of operations. In response, they spend a great deal more money to hire civilians who freely choose to work there.

Now, of course, the government wants a few scapegoats and show trials – and the Bill of Rights would definitely get in the way. So what’s the response?

Fully take away the rights of those people who have risked their lives, and make them subject to military tribunals.

Even worse, nearly the entire Congress voted in approval.

Here’s a few of the inalienable rights that are stripped from these people:

• Grand Jury Hearings
• Trial by jury

There is absolutely no authorization in the Constitution for the government to arbitrarily take away these rights from people – just based on the location of where they work.

Civilians are to be tried as civilians and soldiers are to be tried as soldiers.
And that’s the law.