The military is much like a firearm. It is neither good nor bad. The military is a good thing when it is used to defend the nation. Unfortunately, because of the moral turpitude of our politicians, the military has been misused over the last several years.
Agreed
The military was used to invade Iraq, a nation that never attacked us, and without a Declaration of War, as required by the Constitution.
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states:
The Congress shall have power:
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Congress abrogated that authority through the War Powers Act of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq). In 1541(c), Congress gives the President the following rights:
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Note item 2, above. Congress has stated that they no longer need to make a formal declaration of war. They need only to make a specific statutory authorization (a far lower threshold).
As it stands, each military action entered in by the U.S. since the passage of the War Powers Act in 1973 has had specific military authorization. The attacks against Afghanistan were authorized by the 107th Congress, S.J. 23., while the actions in Iraq were authorized by the 107th Congress, H.J. Res. 114. Both bills passed overwhelmingly.
Is the War Powers process constitutional? Well, until the Supreme Court says otherwise, it seems that Congress is exercising its power under Article I Section 8 constitutionally (albeit in a wimpy way).
And besides all of that, the reason given at the time was a lie. And even if Iraq, a sovereign nation had these weapons, where do we get the authority to determine that they are not allowed to have them? Because we’re bigger than them?
(commenting on your bolded text) That has seemed to be the opinion of three administrations of both parties, as well as the opinion of the majority of the members of Congress. But I think that you ask a very, very good question. What right do we have to say if another sovereign State has the weapons it chooses to defend itself?
I am an Iraq veteran, and a retired Master Sergeant.
Congratulations on your retirement. I retired before the current operation.
For this reason, I believe that anyone in the military needs to take an interest in politics.
Within the realm of propriety, I agree with you. Although that interest in politics shouldn’t cause a person to interfere with their status as a soldier/sailor/airman.
Otherwise, we become the equivalent of mercenaries, attacking whomever out master send us to kill.
You know, as well as I do, that a soldier can’t choose his war. He can choose whether to be in the service or not be in the service, but after making that choice, he is at the disposal of his chain of command. He can, if he has a change in heart, file as a Conscientious Objector (CO), but that is if he becomes opposed to ALL war, not a particular war.
Is it any wonder that Ron Paul gets more contributions from the military than all the other candidates?
Do you have a source for that statement? You’re not the first one I’ve heard make that statement, but I have never seen any hard proof of that statement, nor have I been able to locate it on the 'Net. (The only way I could see it one way or the other is to download and crunch the FEC database, and I don’t have the time to do that)
The military exists to defend our nation, not to steal oil from Iraq, and give it to the big oil companies. That’s right. Go on line and look up the Iraqi Oil Bill. The Administration is pressuring the Iraqi government into turning over 91% of its oil to the big oil companies.
I did. The Iraqi Government’s
“Oil Bill” of 2007 states that all the oil and gas in Iraq belong to the Iraqis and that they are creating a state-owned entity, the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC), to manage it. The Bill says nothing about turning over oil to the “big oil companies.” So, again, you need to prove your allegation(s), not just state them and expect people to accept them.
Bottom line is that I am sure you had a hard time during your tour(s) in Iraq and a I feel for you and will pray for you.
