E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, November 24, 2014

1, 2, 3, 4 we don't need another war

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.

(2 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

At November 24, 2014 at 4:59 AM , Blogger 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?


At November 24, 2014 at 7:09 AM , Blogger 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.


Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. 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.