If
American interests are at stake, then our goal should not be stalemate
(Time) – I supported the decision to
go to war with Afghanistan after our nation was attacked on 9/11. Colin Powell
wrote in his autobiography: “War should be the politics of last resort. And
when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and
support.” I believe that he had it right. America should only go to war to win.
War should occur only when America
is attacked, when it is threatened or when American interests are attacked or
threatened. I don’t think the situation in Syria passes that test. Even the
State Department argues that “there’s no military solution here that’s good for
the Syrian people, and that the best path forward is a political solution.”
The U.S. should not fight a war to
save face. I will not vote to send young men and women to sacrifice life and
limb for stalemate. I will not vote to send our nation’s best and brightest to
fight for anything less than victory. If American interests are at stake, then
our goal should not be stalemate.
If American interests are at stake,
then it is incumbent upon those advocating for military action to convince
Congress and the American people of that threat. Too often, the debate begins
and ends with an assertion that our national interest is at stake without any
evidence of that assertion. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to
engage in war.
Bashar Assad is clearly not an
American ally. But does his ouster encourage stability in the Middle East, or
would his ouster actually encourage instability?
Are the Islamic rebels our allies?
Will they defend American interests? Will they acknowledge Israel’s right to
exist? Will they impose Shari‘a? Will they tolerate Christians, or will they
pillage and destroy ancient Christian churches and people?The President and his Administration have not provided good answers to any of these questions. Those who seek military action have an obligation to publicly address these concerns before dragging our soldiers into another Middle Eastern war. Shooting first and aiming later has not worked for us in the past, and it should not be our game plan now.
In 2007, then Senator Obama stated
that no President should unilaterally go to war without congressional authority
unless there is an actual or imminent threat to our nation. James Madison
argued this same position. Our Founding Fathers understood that the Executive
Branch was the most prone to war. That is the constitutional position.
President Obama’s new position,
though, is that while he requests congressional input, he doesn’t necessarily
need Congress’s approval. The President and his Administration view this vote
as a courtesy vote. Even though only 9% of the American population supports
this intervention, according to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, and even if
Congress votes against it, the President still believes that he reserves the
right to involve our soldiers in another country’s civil war.But Mr. President, that is not how our Constitution works.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress — and Congress alone — the power to declare war. If Congress does not approve this military action, the President must abide by that decision.
There is no debate more significant
for a legislator than the decision to engage in war. We must hold our leaders
accountable.
Source: http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/04/sen-rand-paul-why-im-voting-no-on-syria/#ixzz2dzLgcZkw
No comments:
Post a Comment