Non-Interventionists To Get Tested

Any criticism of Ron Paul usually brings his loyal supporters out in droves. One of Paul's positions is about to be tested and it will be interesting to see how his folks react.  

Those who call Paul an "isolationist" are quickly corrected. He is a "non-interventionist" swiftly say his loyalists.  Of course the analysis doesn't end there.  When asked if that attitude makes him a "pacifist" they say no, he just insists upon following the Constitution and demands a declaration of war by Congress before the use of military force.  

Of course what is really at the heart of this approach is the subject of debate, some saying that what Paul really wants is an end to any use of force and figures that by insisting upon congressional approval he improves his chances of slowing the process down long enough to win the battle over the deployment of our military. Others say that he really is just trying to be "constitutional" and point to his vote on Afghanistan as evidence that he is not opposed to the use of all force.

It's hard to know what's on his mind but recent developments regarding Syria could be very revealing.  It looks like we are about to come to the aid of the Syrian people who are being murdered by their own government. Will Ron Paul oppose or endorse that action?  Will he acknowledge the separation of powers in the Constitution, the President's role as commander in chief and the existing grant of authority for the use of force for a limited period of time under the War Powers Resolution? Or will he demand that Congress have control of the President's actions?

Circumstances like those involving Syria give all of us a chance to test the metal in the non-interventionist approach against cries for help from people unable to defend themselves from brutality, genocide and ethnic cleansing, the realities of life in other parts of the world.

Let the debate begin.

Comments

[Anon]

Marc wrote regarding Syria:

I know the argument: They are a soverign nation and we have no business interfereing with their internal affairs. Well the same could be said about a married couple, unless of course I see some husband beating the snot out of his wife. Maybe it is their marriage, maybe it is non of my business but only a coward would stand by and watch some man beat his wife.

When we see brutal dictators murdering their helpless citizens and we just stand by saying "we must be non-interventionists" it makes me want to puke.

My reply: Let's take the analogy further. If your married neighbors are fighting, is it the right thing for you to do to take your gun and point it to another neighbors heads and tell him that he must stop that fight?

That's what you are advocating if you want the government to help the Syrians. If you want to help them with your own money or life, go ahead, no one stops you, but forcing other people to do it just creates more problems.

[Anon]

The problem with the government helping Syrians is that it requires stealing money from the American people. Why should your hard-earned dollars go to help strangers? What if you have a medical issue and would like to donate that money to research? Or what if you would like to help people who are suffering but in another country? You don't need the government to take your money to send aid to them. You can just send the money yourself or even go there and fight in Syria.

[Mr. Scott Ryan]

As a congressman he will oppose any such intervention short of Syria committing an act of war against this country.

If he were president and congress chose to define these offenses as being against the Law of Nations and if congress were to demand intervention and regime change as punishment for violating international law, then Paul would scream "Charge !!!!".

I am not sure why this is a test to his "non-interventionism".

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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;

[Marc's reply: With so many people adding their voice to the call for action against Syria and no one talking about getting congressional approval first, Ron Paul could get a chance to poll his views in real time with real voters. That's what I mean]