|Monday, November 24, 2014|
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)
"A healthy society should avoid war at all costs, except when immediately vital for its own self-defense." -- Andrew Napolitano, Fox News
After the Republican wave of 2014, former Congressman Ron Paul tweeted the following: "Republican control of the Senate = expanded neocon wars in Syria and Iraq. Boots on the ground are coming!" I said then that I hope he is wrong.
The primary problem with Paul's statement is that he is putting the focus in the wrong place. The Republican Congress cannot send us to war without the agreement of President Barack Obama. Our foreign policy, and especially our military policy, is directed by our commander-in-chief. That is not the Republican who leads the House or the Senate - that is Barack Obama. If we are going to have boots on the ground to fight the Islamic State in either Iraq or Syria, Barack Obama will be the one who puts them there. It is silly to pre-emptively blame the Republican Party for a decision made by a Democratic President, even if they support that decision.
With that said, we need to be very careful about what we decide to do in the coming weeks and months. Does ISIS represent a direct threat to national security? If they are now seeking to harm American interests, is it because they were always planning on doing that or is it because we have punched a hornet's nest by bombing them? I see no clear national security interest that would justify the drastic step of military action.
Congress should have demanded that Obama ask for Congressional approval before embarking on a military adventure against the Islamic State. This is true for Iraq, but is exponentially more so on Syria. One could make the argument that fighting in Iraq is a continuation of our mission there from 2003 onward, though that argument strains credibility. There is absolutely no Congressional authorization to attack anyone inside Syria and there should have been a vote.
Neither party wanted a vote for political reasons, and it is shameful and despicable that our elected "leaders" will happily allow our courageous soldiers to be put at risk of being maimed, tortured or killed while they are such sniveling, pathetic cowards that they cannot even bear to lose a few votes or even an election or two. Any "leader" or member of either party in either chamber who opposed a vote for political reasons should be run out of Washington on a rail and should never be elected to anything ever again.
Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.
, Mike Newton said...
"It is silly to pre-emptively blame the Republican Party for a decision made by a Democratic President, even if they support that decision."
Should Paul's prophecy come true, will you at least admit your rotten party, led by war hawks at the highest level, shares complicity? Or will it be just one more case of dumping all blame on the black guy, as the GOP had done incessantly?
, Scott Tibbs said...
I have criticized GOP hawks before. See here and here. Yes, if the Congress supports the march to war, they share responsibility.
But like it or not, Barack Obama is President. Not Bush. Not McCain. Not Romney. If we expand military force, it is on Obama - the Commander-In-Chief.
The fact that we're at war right now with ISIS is an Obama policy. He ordered military action without a vote from Congress.
It's long past time to start blaming Obama for his policies. He has been President for almost 6 years.
Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.
- A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.
- This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.
- Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.
- Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.
- All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.
Thank you for your cooperation.