Yesterday I posted, for the second time, on why I think intervention by the United States in Libya is a monumentally bad idea. Needless to say, I was concerned that time and space would temporarily bend and I'd find myself in alignment with Ron Paul (Cuckoopants - TX) and his band of merry nincompoops. This would have required me to spend a couple of weeks pretending to be a libertarian in the men's room of the DC Greyhound station to get my self respect back.
Much to my relief, Ron Paul has finally issued a statement on the Libyan situation. What follows is not parody.
[No link provided]
Last week we once again heard numerous voices calling for intervention in Libya. Most say the US should establish a "no-fly" zone over Libya, pretending that it is a benign, virtually cost-free action, and the least we could do to assist those trying to oust the Gaddaffi regime. Let us be clear about one thing: for the US to establish a “no fly” zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. Establishing any kind of military presence in the sovereign territory of Libya will require committing troops to engage in combat against the Libyan air force, as well as anti-aircraft systems. The administration has stated that nothing is off the table as they discuss US responses to the unrest. This sort of talk is alarming on so many levels. Does this mean a nuclear strike is on the table? Apparently so.
In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. This week I will introduce a concurrent resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist.
blah blah Constitution blah blah Fed blah blah China.
As I've said before, I take backseat to no man in my contempt for this president and the incalculable damage he's wrought on this nation. But to say that this administration which is congenitally unable to take any action outside punishing its domestic political opponents is considering the use of nuclear weapons in Libya simply marks one as crazy or, more likely, one who thinks his followers are morons.
Similarly, the statement that the President of the United States is Constitutionally proscribed from committing US military forces to a Libyan intervention, absent a declaration of war, is simply wrong in all its particulars. The idea that such was the understanding of the Founding Fathers is little more than a style of revisionism that one thought went out with the fall of the USSR.
Under President George Washington the US Army suffered the most casualties in any single battle up until the American Civil War. Under President John Adams the US carried out a undeclared war against France. Under President Thomas Jefferson we fought the First Barbary War, referenced in the Marine's Hymn by the phrase "shores of Tripoli", also without a declaration of war. In fact, most US military actions, including wars like the Civil War, were carried out without a declaration of war.
In my view, US intervention is both unwise and unnecessary. If the administration chose to intervene, it would by no means be unconstitutional for it to do so whether by establishing a no-fly zone, establishing safe areas a la Bosnia, or committing of US forces on either side in the conflict.