The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
Congress Again Proves That the Business of Washington Is War
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Libertarian educator Tom Woods famously quipped that “no matter who you vote for you end up with John McCain.” Unfortunately Woods was proven right for about the thousandth time this past week, as Washington again showed us that it is all about war.

First, we learned that if Joe Biden ends up in the White House next month he intends to put a deep state member of the military-industrial complex in charge of the Pentagon. General Lloyd Austin will be only the second Defense Secretary in decades to require a special Senate waiver to serve in that position. Gen. James Mattis under President Trump also needed a waiver, as he had been out of the military less than the required seven years before becoming Defense Secretary.

But the revolving door between active military service and civilian leadership of the Pentagon is perhaps less troubling than the revolving door between the military-industrial complex and leadership of the Defense Department.

As the first African-American to take charge of the Pentagon, the Austin pick is celebrated as a great victory for “diversity.” However, if we move beyond the color of a person’s skin, Biden’s selection is not all that diverse. Gen. Austin was head of the US Central Command under an Obama Administration that launched a brutal war on Libya under false pretenses and pursued a regime-change policy in Syria that involved arming and training jihadists. Upon retirement, as is all too common with military leaders, he cashed in on his service with a position on the board of military contractor Raytheon.

Austin will be “business as usual” for Washington’s warmongers and the military contractors who make a fortune inventing endless conflicts overseas.

Then things went from bad to worse, as the yearly monstrosity called the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was passed with an amendment severely restricting the US president’s ability to remove troops from Afghanistan and Europe. Offered by neoconservative Congresswoman Liz Cheney, daughter of the warmongering Dick Cheney, the amendment all but guarantees that America’s longest war in history will continue pointlessly onward.

A coalition of warmongering Democrats and Republicans have been furious with President Trump for his last minute effort to draw troops down from Afghanistan and elsewhere, and they appear to have a veto-proof majority to tie the president’s hands.

Congress has for decades believed that the president can go to war whenever or wherever he pleases without a declaration, but if the president dares attempt to end a war their belief in a “unitary executive” is thrown out the window. What hypocrisy.

The Constitution is clear that the president is the commander in chief of the military and as such should have the authority to move troops as he sees fit. The Founders understood that 535 Members of Congress trying to micromanage troops on the battlefield is not a good idea.

Congress has it backward. It should be very difficult for a president to take the country to war and easy for that war to be ended.

Time after time, the “peace” candidate usually wins the election. But no matter how sick the American people are of endless war, the war machine finds a way to keep chugging along. What will it take to return to a policy of peace and prosperity?

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 22 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Red* + Blue = War

    But keep voting, sheeple. That’s how the Establishment knows you assent.

    ——

    *Trump included. Like everything else for the last four years, the inevitably frustrated “drawdown” is part of the puppet show.

    • Agree: Realist, GomezAdddams
    • Replies: @DDearborn
  2. Realist says:

    “Congress Again Proves That the Business of Washington Is War”

    No more proof is needed.

  3. Wyatt says:

    What will it take to return to a policy of peace and prosperity?

    Nationalize the defense industries and limit wars to 2 year periods that require a plebiscite with a 2/3 majority to continue, otherwise they end automatically when all the new federal fuckheads get sworn in.

    • Replies: @Jokem
    , @Reg Cæsar
  4. onebornfree says: • Website

    “Congress Again Proves That the Business of Washington Is War”

    Here’s a quick reality check concerning the true nature of all states- this “just” in:

    “War is the health of the state” Randolph Bourne

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”or “improved”,simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

    “The State thrives on war – unless, of course, it is defeated and crushed – expands on it, glories in it.”
    Murray Rothbard

    End of story. You either get it, or you don’t.

    Regards, onebornfree

  5. Patriot says:

    Many factors contribute to America’s endless wars: Industrial profiteering, Generals and other military officers who want to practice their craft, “test” their new toys or train a new generation of soldiers, or politicians who need to create an external enemy for political gain.

    But, the most vile current reason is that Israel uses the USA as its whore to fight Israel’s wars to destroy all its surrounding Islamic nations. Israel much prefers that Americans fight, die in the Middle East, than for Jewish boys to fight and die. Israel also prefers that American taxpayers foot the bill for Israeli wars.

    Without Jews bribing, threatening, and blackmailing (Jeffery Epstien) Congress and the Executive Branch, wars, taxes, and the deficit would greatly decrease.

    How many Americans have now died fighting for Israel? Israel thanks you for your service.

  6. Jokem says:
    @Wyatt

    Nationalizing never works, although our defense industries are effectively a branch of government now.

    Require a Declaration of War for all but the Marines, Navy and CIA to invade a foreign country.
    Marines, Navy and CIA can still invade with merely a Congressional Authorization.

    I have more to say on this but do not want to go on a rant.

    • Troll: Greta Handel
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  7. DDearborn says:
    @Greta Handel

    Hmmm

    RED + BLUE = zionist lapdog

    • Agree: Patriot
  8. @Jokem

    A declaration of war by the US should only be possible if the nation is attacked. Note I said the nation, not the military outposts all around the world. If the geographic US is attacked on that soil, not its embassies, military bases, etc, then and only then can a war be declared as a DEFENSIVE measure. Offensive war should be outlawed under any and all circumstances.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  9. @Wyatt

    limit wars to 2 year periods that require a plebiscite with a 2/3 majority to continue

    You mean fifty plebiscites. One for each electorate. We were a federation once, and should keep that distinction.

    I would allow anyone subject to Selective Service registration during the resulting Congress– illegal aliens excepted!– to vote in elections. Yes, tenth-grade boys.

    Again, this would be state-by-state.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  10. Jokem says:
    @RoatanBill

    I don’t agree.

    Attacks on our military are just as much an act of war as an attack on any American Citizen.

    My problem with Defensive measures is the way technology has made war so brief.
    By the time Congress gets their act together there may not be a Nation left.

    Back when the USA was founded Congress has plenty of time to respond to act of war and the technology of the time meant wars could last for years. Now, a few hours or minutes might
    spell the end of a nations ability to fight back.

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    , @RoatanBill
  11. Jokem says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    There is a school of thought that 2 years of military service ought to quality a person for citizenship.
    I think that is worth discussing.

    • Replies: @Verity
    , @Reg Cæsar
  12. @Jokem

    Do you really believe that under anyone’s interpretation of the Constitution that “our” troops can’t fight back until there’s been a Congressional declaration of war?

    The upthread gibberish about Marines, Navy, and CIA (!) indicates, once again, that you’re a deft troll. If not, it is time to call you a name: dingbat.

    • LOL: GomezAdddams
    • Replies: @Jokem
  13. Verity says:
    @Jokem

    Does not in any way compute. Why would submitting to a totally regimented, authoritarian, dictatorship that claims to own your body and mind make you ready to participate in a democratic system?

    • Replies: @Jokem
  14. @Jokem

    There is a school of thought that 2 years of military service ought to quality a person for citizenship.

    Until recently, the Philippines required all male high school seniors to be in JROTC. Since they’re in school anyway, that would be about the least intrusive way.

    It’s highly unlikely that Dr Paul would support even that! Still, a peacetime draft in a truly neutral country like Switzerland or Sweden can serve as a preventative to war. That sure wasn’t the case here in 1940.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  15. @Jokem

    The US military is comprised of murderers and malingerers. Any soldier in some foreign land, uninvited, is fair game for anyone that wants to take him out. Any US service persons in the middle east, for example, should go before a tribunal for war crimes and be hung for the criminals they are.

    • Agree: GomezAdddams
  16. Jokem says:
    @Greta Handel

    Greta –

    Since you choose to use name calling as a substitute for reasoned argument you have exceeded
    my capacity for forbearance. You are an overconfident, self righteous, arrogant gargoyle best
    suited for a job in the red light district.

    Next time you want to write something, raise your hand and stick it up your nether regions.

  17. Jokem says:
    @Verity

    In response to your question. Those who choose to lay down their lives to defend a Nation they
    are not citizens of, deserve the benefits of that nation.

  18. Jokem says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    True, but in 1940 any serious threat the USA faced was an ocean away. The Swiss and Swedes did
    not have that luxury, and still do not.

    My response to that is for the government in the USA to offer free firearms marksmanship and
    safety training to anyone who is legally allowed to possess a firearm. Instead of compulsory
    military training.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  19. @Jokem

    To continue on your thought, there should be no street cops and the average citizen should be offered police training in weapons use so that the average citizen IS there own street cop.

    Criminals should be dealt with during the commission of their crime and by that I mean they should be killed on the spot with reloading of the weapon if necessary to ensure they’re dead.

    Fewer or no prisons, fewer and fewer criminals, fewer and fewer court rooms needed, fewer and fewer judges, prosecutors, etc, less expense allows for lowering of taxes, and the maximum benefit – the political class losses their guards. Politicians will have to face their constituents without a protective phalanx of body guards paid for by the public.

    • Replies: @Jokem
  20. Jokem says:
    @RoatanBill

    Tempting, but impractical. Police have always been needed since the establishment
    of the very first government.
    Your idea might work for individual crime, but organized crime cannot be fought
    effectively without being part of an organization.
    Of course the people could organize into enforcement groups, but then you end
    up having the beginnings of a police force.
    Then there is always the trigger-happy citizen who shoots the hippie sitting on the
    street corner next to his house. At that point you need the courts.

    Just as an FYI, I think the founders of this country thought the people should have
    the same weapons as the police and military.

  21. The Washitington swamp is the natural place for the tired and humbled asses yearning to be free of their burdens

    until democracy can produce a working straight
    flush

  22. Anon[240] • Disclaimer says:

    For 70 years, it has been one war after another, all in peripheral places. This must continue. The Middle East is wearing thin. A new peripheral place is needed. For a large deployment; no actual fighting is needed. The operative mode for lawyers is: complex, expensive, drawn-out, and hostile. The military only needs the first three; protective instead of hostile; creating a “presence” is sufficient.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS