Another United Nations War?

President Bush Sr. proudly spoke of "The New World Order," a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In going to war in 1991, he sought and received UN authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this UN authority was adequate, and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War therefore was clearly a UN, political war fought within UN guidelines, not for U.S. security – and it was not fought through to victory. The bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never stopped. We are now about to resume the active fighting. Although this is referred to as the second Persian Gulf War, it’s merely a continuation of a war started long ago, and is likely to continue for a long time even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power.

Our attitude toward the United Nations is quite different today compared to 1991. I have argued for years against our membership in the United Nations because it compromises our sovereignty. The U.S. has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of UN expenses. I contend that membership in the United Nations has led to impractical military conflicts that were highly costly both in lives and dollars, and that were rarely resolved.

Our 58 years in Korea have seen 33,000 lives lost, 100,000 casualties, and over a trillion dollars in today’s dollars spent. Korea is the most outrageous example of our fighting a UN war without a declaration from the U.S. Congress. And where are we today? On the verge of a nuclear confrontation with a North Korean regime nearly out of control. And to compound the irony, the South Koreans are intervening in hopes of diminishing the tensions that exist between the United States and North Korea!

As bad as the Vietnam nightmare was, at least we left and the UN was not involved. We left in defeat and Vietnam remained a unified communist country. The results have been much more salutary. Vietnam is now essentially non-communist, and trade with the West is routine. We didn’t disarm Vietnam, we never counted their weapons, and so far no one cares. Peaceful relations have developed between our two countries, not by force of arms, but through trade and friendship. No United Nations, no war, and no inspections served us well – even after many decades of war and a million deaths inflicted on the Vietnamese in an effort by both the French and the United States to force them into compliance with Western demands.

But in this new battle with Iraq, our relationship with the United Nations and our allies is drawing a lot of attention. The administration now says it would be nice to have UN support, but it’s not necessary. The President argues that a unilateralist approach is permissible with his understanding of national sovereignty. But no mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a UN prerogative, and that such authority can only come from the U.S. Congress.

Although the argument that the United Nations cannot dictate to us what is in our best interest is correct, and we do have a right to pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it’s ironic that we’re making this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people or governments throughout the world support. But the argument for unilateralism and national sovereignty cannot be made for the purpose of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. That doesn’t make any sense. If one wants to enforce UN Security Council resolutions, that authority can only come from the United Nations itself. We end up with the worst of both worlds: hated for our unilateralism, but still lending credibility to the UN.

The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to our security, that authority must come from the U. S. Congress. Those who believe, and many sincerely do, that the United Nations serves a useful function, argue that ignoring the United Nations at this juncture will surely make it irrelevant. Even with my opposition to the United Nations, I can hardly be pleased that its irrelevancy might come about because of our rush to war against a nation that has not aggressed against us nor poses any threat to us. From my viewpoint the worst scenario would be for the United Nations to sanction this war, which may well occur if we offer enough U.S. taxpayer money and Iraqi oil to the reluctant countries. If that happens we could be looking at another 58-year occupation, expanded Middle East chaos, or a dangerous spread of hostilities to all of Asia or even further.

With regard to foreign affairs, the best advice comes from our Founders and the Constitution. It is better to promote peace and commerce with all nations, and exclude ourselves from the entangling, dangerous, complex, and unworkable alliances that come with our membership in the United Nations.

You are determined to stubbornly insist that only you have the intelligence and principles to determine what is constitutional. It is one of the most annoying aspects of trying to discuss political reality with libertarians. It doesn't matter that you are usually wrong. You are always wrong and your only purpose is to be argumentative and seek notice.

**********************

No, I do not insist that only my opinion matters. I insist that my opinion also matters.

The common people aren't as common as you think. The twelve men of the Supreme Court are not the only humans qualified to judge the law; nor are only members of Congress qualified to have political opinions, nor only policemen qualified to enforce the law, nor is only the President qualified to defend the country.

Try to remember that our Founders themselves were libertarians, harrowup. They had a problem with political "realities," too.

"Sure it is. They weren't singing about the judicial process."

It’s not an analogy, just a general phrase that plays on words like, "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is" or "you get what you pay for". An analogy references something specific and hints at a parallel to the current subject.

The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war, it does not however, limit the use of our military to declared wars. (Ron Paul) knows this quite well, and is now grandstanding for future votes.

**********************

In what way is Ron Paul grandstanding for votes? Ron Paul runs as a Republican. Going against the Republican leadership is not a good way of promoting his re-election.

You're going to need a better argument if you're going to do a competent job of demonizing Ron Paul. That one doesn't fly.

If you go to this page and scroll to the blue box on the bottom, you'll see what I mean. Note that even Alexander Hamilton, who was the most outspoken among the Founders in favor of a strong executive, was unequivocal in his understanding that only Congress decides on war and peace.

elfman2 - As long as you’re certain that the Constitution is "explicit on every issue", could you show me where that’s stated as well?

**********************

That's not my quote, elfman2. The Constitution is not explicit on every issue. The Constitution is explicit on every governmental power.

The power to decide war was given to Congress. If Congress gives that power to the President, the President is deciding war. That's illegal.

As an aside, when the President breaks the law, Congress is required to punish the transgression. If the President decides to go to war, and Congress allows it, Congress is breaking the law, too.

"You were implying that because the judges exercised their "Free Will" as human beings in choosing not to decide, they've somehow made a legal ruling. That is what I was taking issue with. "

The effects the same. If Congress makes a borderline unconstitutional law tomorrow, I think it’s as good as legal until a judge exercises his ‘Free Will’ and puts a stay on its implementation. They know this, and that’s what I think the lyric is referring to. No choice is a choice because it has a resulting outcome. (Who’d have guessed that a Rush lyric would settle this disagreement.)

If we're truly going to war for the security of the United States, we need a Declaration of War from Congress. So what's the big deal? Is it too much to ask, expecting our elected representatives to follow the law?

They may not have "declared war" but Congress did give the President authorization to go after Saddem

It's only "as good as legal" in the practical sense. The courts have ruled in the past that an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional from the moment it's passed, not from the moment it's declared unconstitutional. The court's job is merely to discover it's unconstitutionality, not to cause it. Hence, if they decline to do their job in a particular case, the law is still unconstitutional, but simply hasn't been officially "discovered" to be so. So it's only in that sense that it's as good as legal.

I guess Thomas Jefferson didn't know what the intent of the Founders had been when he decided to enter into undeclared wars with France, and with the Barbary pirates.

**********************

Thomas Jefferson didn't want to go to war without a Declaration of War. He asked for one, but Alexander Hamilton, a believer in a strong central government, argued that a Declaration of War wasn't necessary, and persuaded Congress to insist that Jefferson go to war anyway, on the grounds that as we were attacked, a declaration of war was unnecessary.

Jefferson complied, either for political considerations or because he didn't want to waste time fighting over procedure. That was a mistake on his part, I believe. He should have let Congress take the heat, and insisted on a Declaration of War before acting.

"The power to decide war was given to Congress. If Congress gives that power to the President, the President is deciding war. That's illegal."

I’ll take your word that I misquoted you. I apologize.

I see nothing intrinsic in the power to do something that excludes the power to delegate it. And to some extent, the Commander & Chief will always be delegated with the power to not wage war after Congress authorizes it. So in that sense, the latest congressional authorizations were a declaration of war, but with early recognition of the executive's authority to abstain from prosecuting it.

This is the kind of flexibility that our enemies probably didn’t expect of this nation when they declared war on us.

They may not have "declared war" but Congress did give the President authorization to go after Saddem

**********************

Hello, Mo1.

Yes, the President was given Congressional authorization to decide whether he wanted to go to war with Iraq in the name of the United Nations.

I have a problem with the President having say-so over whether to go to war, I have a problem with Congress meekly offering the power to the President, and I have a problem with the official reason for war being based on the interests of the United Nations .

That's not quite true. Jefferson did get an "authorization" similar to the Iraq resolution. The difference is in how these resolutions were understood by the Presidents to whom they were directed. Jefferson, and the other presidents of the period, understood an "authorization" to be merely a diplomatic way of saying "directive" to go to war, and acted accordingly. When the authorization was passed, hostilities commenced.

President Bush, on the other hand (along with the other presidents of the modern period), have looked upon congressional authorizations as bank checks, to be cashed or not, depending on when and whether they felt like it. This is what makes it a perversion of what the Founders explicitly intended. As you correctly pointed out earlier, it unconstitutionally delegates to the President the decision of war and peace.

As for the thing about Hamilton, that was in reference to an incident that occurred prior to the congressional resolution, when American naval vessels captured a Barbary vessel, then released it on Jefferson's orders, citing the lack of official hostilities. Hamilton castigated him for that, saying that the immediate situation called for keeping the vessel in captivity.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.