President Starts A War? Congress Yawns. Threatens To End One? Condemnation! By Ron Paul
(2019-02-12 at 01:47:03 )

President Starts a War? Congress Yawns. Threatens to End One? Condemnation! By Ron Paul

Last weeks bipartisan United States Senate vote to rebuke President Trump for his decision to remove troops from Syria and Afghanistan unfortunately tells us a lot about what is wrong with Washington, DC.

While the two parties loudly bicker about minor issues, when it comes to matters like endless wars overseas they enthusiastically join together.

With few exceptions, Republicans and Democrats lined up to admonish the president for even suggesting that it is time for United States troops to come home from Afghanistan and Syria.

The amendment, proposed by the Senate Majority Leader and passed overwhelmingly by both parties, 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 amendment correctly pointed out, a withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan is hardly "precipitous" since they have been there for nearly 18 years!

And with al-Qaeda and ISIS largely defeated in Syria a withdrawal from that country would hardly be "precipitous" after almost five years of unauthorized United States military action.

Senators supporting the rebuke claim that United States troops cannot leave until every last ISIS fighter is killed or captured.

This is obviously a false argument.

Al-Qaeda and ISIS did not emerge in Iraq because United States troops left the country - they emerged because the United States was in the country in the first place.

Where was al-Qaeda in Iraq before the 2003 United States invasion the neocons lied us into?

There were not any.

United States troops occupying Iraqi territory was, however, a huge incentive for Iraqis to join a resistance movement.

Similarly, United States intervention in Syria beginning under the Obama Administration contributed to the growth of terrorist groups in that country.

We know that United States invasion and occupation provides the best recruiting tools for terrorists, including suicide terrorists.

So how does it make sense that keeping troops in these countries in any way contributes to the elimination of terrorism?

As to the "vacuum" created in Syria when United States troops pull out, how about allowing the government of Syria to take care of the problem?

After all, it is their country and they have been fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda since the United States helped launch the "regime change" in 2011.

Despite what you might hear in the United States mainstream media, it is Syria along with its allies that has done most of the fighting against these groups and it makes no sense that they would allow them to return.

The United States Congress has the Constitutional responsibility and obligation to declare war, but this has been ignored for decades.

The president bombs far-off lands and even sends troops to fight in and occupy foreign territory and the United States Congress does not say a word.

But if a president dares seek to end a war suddenly the sleeping United States Congressional giant awakens!!

I have spent many years opposing Executive branch over-reach in matters where the president has no Constitutional authority, but when it comes to decisions on where to deploy or re-deploy troops once in battle it is clear that the United States Constitution grants that authority to the commander-in-chief.

The real question we need to ask is why is the United States Congress so quick to anger when the president finally seeks to end the longest war in United States history?

Copyright 2018 by "Ron Paul Institue". Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.