One of the most important responsibilities of Congress is to declare war, which the Founding Fathers declined to entrust to a chief executive. President Bush unilaterally attacked Afghanistan (aka, "The Graveyard of Empires") while Congress did nothing. Now we discover that Ron Johnson is fine with keeping our troops there indefinitely.
Johnson claims that a continued American presence is key to providing assurances to Afghanis that they will be safe from the Taliban. That is not the purpose of the American military. Johnson said there may be a need for advisers there for "quite some time." Perhaps he forgets that the Taliban are Afghans, descendants of the Mujahideen freedom fighters supported by the CIA against the Soviet Union occupation, which ended after ten bloody years of occupation (which the U.S. will soon match).
During the Senate campaign, Johnson never discussed Afghanistan and apparently no one thought to bring it up during the debates. Campaign volunteers were asked for his position more than once and they did not know. Even his campaign website only briefly mentions that Johnson opposes artificial withdrawal deadlines.
It is already clear that Senator Johnson is out of touch with his constituents. The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed." Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed. The continued occupation is just one more example of this. Only 35% of Americans support the Afghan Occupation and 56% believe things are going badly there.
The reason for the illegal invasion of Afghanistan was to capture al Qaeda fighters accused of 9/11 involvement. Today there are less than 100 al Qaeda left but the US troop level has surged, with no end in sight. This conforms nicely with Osama bin Laden's plan to bankrupt the United States.
Conservative commentator Ann Coulter recently wrote, "Every great power that's tried to stage an all-out war in Afghanistan has gotten its ass handed to it. Everyone knows it's not worth the trouble and resources to take a nation of rocks and brigands." Other conservatives, tired of constitutional and budget abuses, are also falling off the war bandwagon, concluding that they can no longer continue to send our troops into that cauldron with no rational expectation of success.
If Congress refuses to listen, Wisconsin must act to protect the men and women in our National Guard. A growing number of states are considering reestablishing their power over their homeland security force, the National Guard. It is up to our Legislature to honor the commitment to our Guard men and women to ensure that they are asked to sacrifice only in the service of the Republic and the People, and ensure that their commitment to serve is never again abused.
Last year, AB 203, the "Safeguard Our Guard" bill was trampled in the rush to get out of Madison. Now is the time for another attempt to take our state back from Washington.
Libertarians challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual. Libertarians oppose the initiation of government force, against other countries or individuals.
###
Members of Congress take an oath of office, which begins, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ...." Senator Johnson has declared willingness to ignore his promise to the government of the United States, and more importantly, to the people of Wisconsin.
Comments
Actually the US congress voted overwhelmingly support of US military involvement (although took the cowardly route and never actually declared war). Congress has continued to support US military involvement with each annual vote of the military budget. Plus, military action in Afghanistan was (and continues to be) supported by NATO, ANZUS, and several other military alliances.
Of course, that does not mean that the whole thing is well advised. But, the adventure was NOT "unilateral" by any definition of the term.
You weaken the libertarian position when your argument includes false, and unnecessary, facts.
RSS feed for comments to this post