Last week, in an
article for the Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf penned a
complimentary piece about “America’s Most Important Anti-War
Politician,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).
Friedersdorf concluded that non-interventionists on both sides
of the aisle should focus more on the legislative branch and less
on the presidency if they’d like to see the “path to war” run
through the Congress, as opposed to an increasingly imperial
executive.
The article was prompted by Paul’s solitary stand against war
with Iran last week, when the junior senator blocked bipartisan
passage of new sanctions to bring context to the use of force.
In his floor speech, Sen. Paul remarked:
Many in this body cannot get boots on ground fast enough in a
variety of places, from Syria to Libya to Iran. We don’t just send
boots to war. We send our young Americans to war. Our young men and
women, our soldiers, deserve thoughtful debate.
Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should
have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of and
over the authorization of war and over the motives of the war.
Paul prefaced this statement with brief — but incisive —
analysis of the Founder’s hesitation to give the president the
power to declare war. Perhaps unlike any other command, the
authority to wage war summons the likeness of monarchy.
I should be clear — Paul wasn’t up there to block passage of
new and effective sanctions against Iran.
Rather, he sounded a wake-up call against a high-flying
presidency, unencumbered by the fundamental checks and balances,
separation of powers and representative government framed by
constitutional principle — not illusions of American empire.
As Friedersdorf notes, Paul’s lonely voice “against war with
Iran… and the extension of the Patriot Act… and the National
Defense Authorization Act… and the War in Libya” ought to earn him
some allies.
One of the things Rand does better than his father is articulate
the dangers of unfettered presidential power when it comes to
military intervention and our increasingly overbearing national
security apparatus. Perhaps more importantly, he musters order
against the extravagance of executive war powers, the danger of
congressional inertia and public submission to status
quo.
His father may feel the same, and he’s undoubtedly informed a
critical mass of young conservatives about the consequences of
robust interventionism — countervailing alliances, terrorism and
nuclear proliferation immediately spring to mind. But while Ron
Paul has assembled ranks of fiercely loyal voters (who will never,
ever cast their lot with a
saber-rattling Rick Santorum) and vastly exceeded expectations
set in 2008, it ultimately falls to his son to communicate his
message on foreign policy in a sober and eloquent manner.
Contrary to misunderstandings expressed by Rep. Paul’s critics,
it isn’t about “blaming America first,” allowing Iran a nuclear
weapon or “isolationism.” But he has trouble getting his point
across, earning him the slings and arrows of the more conventional
Republicans.
In his floor speech last week, Rand effectively communicated his
concerns with America’s perpetual state of war. More than a decade
has passed since we were at peace. It’s become the new normal.
Since America’s unipolar moment, both sides of partisan aisle
have increasingly accepted the introduction of military force into
existing controversies and conflicts. Ordnance, invasion and
occupation have become routine policy alternatives.
As Doug Bandow
noted on this very site, President George H.W. Bush deployed
troops to Panama and Iraq. President Clinton followed suit, through
intervention in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo. President Obama
inherited wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then projected an armed
presence to Libya and Uganda. Most of these conflicts had little to
do with American security.
Only the mission to Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban and
dismantle al Qaeda could be defined as a defensive war effort. Even
the first Gulf War, which met the measure of just war theory, was a
response to unprecedented aggression, compelled by the aegis of UN
initiative — not an immediate threat to the American way of
life.
The rest of these conflicts can best be described as the
international social work of an imperial presidency — one that
must flex its muscle to demonstrate its demand.
The problem is, we’re broke and regardless what you think of Ron
Paul, it’s not “crazy” to problematize an unsustainable national
debt linked to our profligate power problem, and an executive
un-checked.
