President starts a war? Congress yawns. Threatens to end one? Condemnation!

President starts a war? Congress yawns. Threatens to end one? Condemnation!




Last week’s bipartisan Senate vote to rebuke President Trump for his selection to take away troops from Syria and Afghanistan sadly tells us a lot about what’s flawed with Washington, DC. While the 2 occasions loudly bicker about minor factors, when it comes to points like limitless wars overseas they enthusiastically be a a part of collectively. With few exceptions, Republicans and Democrats lined up to admonish the president for even suggesting that it’s time for US troops to come residence from Afghanistan and Syria.

The modification, proposed by the Senate Majority Leader and handed overwhelmingly by every occasions, warns that a “precipitous withdrawal of United States forces from the on-going fight…in Syria and Afghanistan, could allow terrorists to regroup.” As one opponent of the modification precisely recognized, a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan is hardly “precipitous” since they’ve been there for virtually 18 years! And with al-Qaeda and ISIS largely defeated in Syria a withdrawal from that nation would hardly be “precipitous” after practically 5 years of unauthorized US military movement.

Senators supporting the rebuke declare that US troops cannot go away until every last ISIS fighter is killed or captured. This is clearly a false argument. Al-Qaeda and ISIS did not emerge in Iraq as a results of US troops left the nation – they emerged as a results of the US was inside the nation inside the first place. Where was al-Qaeda in Iraq sooner than the 2003 US invasion the neocons lied us into? There weren’t any.

US troops occupying Iraqi territory was, nonetheless, a massive incentive for Iraqis to be a a part of a resistance movement. Similarly, US intervention in Syria beginning beneath the Obama Administration contributed to the enlargement of terrorist groups in that nation.

We know that US invasion and occupation presents the easiest recruiting devices for terrorists, along with suicide terrorists. So how does it make sense that conserving troops in these worldwide places in any method contributes to the elimination of terrorism? As to the “vacuum” created in Syria when US troops pull out, how about allowing the federal authorities of Syria to keep the difficulty? After all, it’s their nation they often’ve been combating ISIS and al-Qaeda given that US helped launch the “regime change” in 2011. Despite what you could hear inside the US mainstream media, it’s Syria along with its allies that has achieved a lot of the combating in direction of these groups and it’s not smart that they’d allow them to return.

Congress has the Constitutional obligation and obligation to declare battle, nonetheless this has been ignored for a few years. The president bombs far-off lands and even sends troops to fight in and occupy abroad territory and Congress doesn’t say a phrase. But if a president dares search to end a battle all the sudden the sleeping Congressional massive awakens!

I’ve spent a few years opposing Executive division over-reach in points the place the president has no Constitutional authority, nonetheless when it comes to picks on the place to deploy or re-deploy troops as quickly as in battle it is clear that the Constitution grants that authority to the commander-in-chief. The precise question we might like to ask is why is Congress so quick to anger when the president lastly seeks to end the longest battle in US historic previous?

Dr. Ron Paul is a former member of the House of Representatives. This article was written for and revealed by the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.




Be the first to comment on "President starts a war? Congress yawns. Threatens to end one? Condemnation!"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*