Will Congress Endorse Obama's War Plans? Does it Matter?
By Ron Paul
Monday, September 02, 2013 at 12:09 PM
President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the U.S. military. But even if every single member and senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.
Besides, the president made it clear that Congressional authorization is superfluous, asserting falsely that he has the authority to act on his own with or without Congress. That Congress allows itself to be treated as window dressing by the imperial president is just astonishing.
The president on Saturday claimed that the alleged chemical attack in Syria on Aug. 21 presented "a serious danger to our national security." I disagree with the idea that every conflict, every dictator, and every insurgency everywhere in the world is somehow critical to our national security. That is the thinking of an empire, not a republic. It is the kind of thinking that this president shares with his predecessor and it is bankrupting us and destroying our liberties here at home.
According to recent media reports, the military does not have enough money to attack Syria and would have to go to Congress for a supplemental appropriation to carry out the strikes. It seems our empire is at the end of its financial rope. The limited strikes that the president has called for in Syria would cost the U.S. in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote to Congress last month that just the training of Syrian rebels and "limited" missile and air strikes would cost "in the billions" of dollars. We should clearly understand what another war will do to the U.S. economy, not to mention the effects of additional unknown costs such as a spike in fuel costs as oil skyrockets.
I agree that any chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of U.S. bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by U.S. allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the U.S.-allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria?
For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2,000-3,000 who have been killed by Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?
In The Sociology of Imperialism, Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the Roman Empire's suicidal interventionism: "There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest -- why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted."
Sadly, this sounds like a summary of Obama's speech over the weekend. We are rapidly headed for the same collapse as the Roman Empire if we continue down the president's war path. What we desperately need is an overwhelming Congressional rejection of the president's war authorization. Even a favorable vote, however, cannot change the fact that this is a self-destructive and immoral policy.
Written for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.