Rep. Ron Paul on Libya
by Daniel Sayani
Rep. Ron Paul
(R-Texas) is regarded as one of the most principled noninterventionists
in Congress, as he has consistently supported the Founding Fathers
opposition to entangling alliances, meddling in the affairs of other
nations, and swaying internal politics in foreign governments.
principled noninterventionists, Rep. Paul has declared his opposition
to Americas intervention in Libya. Aside from it violating
the principles of the Founding Fathers, President Obamas use
of American troops in Libya is also unconstitutional, since it is
yet another undeclared war that is, war that the nation entered
without congressional approval as were the Korean War, Vietnam
War, Gulf War, invasion of Serbia, and current Wars in Iraq and
like the war in Serbia and Kosovo (where American troops were subjected
to serving under UN and NATO forces), and in Korea and Iraq (which
were entered into under UN mandates), the current intervention in
Libya is being fought with American troops under the command of
NATO generals, yet another example of how America's war-making power
is being cast aside in favor of an international entity and America's
sovereignty compromised. Of course, the enormous cost associated
with such military intervention poses another threat to America
long-term viability, as the ever-increasing deficit continues to
metastasize due to the continuation of the welfare-warfare
state, in which the costs of defense spending rise exponentially.
Rep. Paul articulated
these themes of constitutionalism, fiscal conservatism, and national
sovereignty in his declared opposition to the military intervention
in Libya in one of his latest television interviews on CNN.
on CNNs In The Arena with former New York Governor
Elliott Spitzer, a Democrat. Spitzer began the interview by contrasting
President Obama's position to the position he espoused as Senator,
and then noting that Paul agrees with Senator Obama. When
Obama was a U.S. Senator, he believed that the country should only
enter war under the constitutional grounds that unless the country
is under immediate attack, only Congress maintains the authority
to declare war.
asked Paul to "explain why you don't think what's going on
in Libya, or, for that matter, the rest of North Africa is any of
our business." According to Paul:
I don't think
they are up front with this. It is said that we are going there
for humanitarian reasons. But have you ever noticed around the
world, there are a lot of humanitarian problems. One, in gross
abuse of rights, was in Rwanda. We didn't care too much about
of demonstrators all through the Middle East right now. But
it's being done by governments that we endorse. There are friendly
dictators. So, I think they are being disingenuous when they say
this is a mission for humanitarianism. It's probably more related
to oil than anything else.
Asked if he
would have supported intervention in Rwanda, Paul said:
I don't think
it's part of our Constitution that we should go around the world
trying to solve every problem. And I think that it's very difficult
to help people who really need it. Even in Libya today, the chances
of really helping the people is unknown.
But too often
when you take money or even food and give it to these factions
when they are fighting and at war, they become weapons of war.
One faction will get it and use it against the other. And very
rarely does it help the people.
So I don't
think it's constitutional. I don't think it accomplishes what
it's supposed to. And that the Founders were, I think, rather
shrewd in giving us advice. Stay out of entangling alliances,
stay out of the internal affairs of other nations.
every reason to help people and we are a generous nation. When
people really suffer, whether there's an earthquake or any type
of tragedy, the American people are quite willing to help.
the rest of the article
© 2011 The New American