Only the US Congress is authorized to declare war. Therefore Representatives and Senators have the grave moral responsibility to prudently evaluate the factual conditions for the moral legitimacy necessary to declare war. War can morally be declared under the following conditions known as the “just war” doctrine:
- The damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave and certain;
- All other means of ending the conflict failed or were impractical or ineffective;
- There must be serious prospects for success;
- The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil sought to be eliminated.
Without having access to classified war briefings, I can make informed, though not completely definitive, judgments about the Iraq War. I believe our troops and our allied forces have successfully removed Saddam Hussein and destroyed his army, but the Iraqi people must win the peace.
Although the war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II, we cannot cut and run, but we must do all we can to stabilize the region and then begin to bring our troops home. Stabilization of the region could be aided if all Iraqi citizens were allowed to own shares of the natural oil wealth thereby instilling a greater incentive to deter violence and protect their homeland. (Wall Street Journal, 11-23-05) We must consult with our allies on how best to stabilize the area, but our first consideration must be our own nation’s national defense and security.
Protecting our citizens from foreign aggressors is the main function of the federal government. Federal, state and local authorities must work together to deter terrorism and prevent the possible nuclear threats. Research, funding and applications for technologies which can detect dangerous nuclear or chemical materials at our border crossings, airports, seaports, inland waterways and railroads must continue.
Senators and Congressmen must ensure that America’s foreign policy commitments to defend our national interests and those of our closest allies cannot exceed our military assets and those of our allies.
America spends a significant amount more on national defense than other nations. Our Navy, with 12 carrier groups, and sea launched cruise missiles, has no rival. The Air Force can deliver precision guided bombs and missiles anywhere on the earth. And the mobility, firepower and armor of the Army and Marines are unequaled.
I believe that the best offense is a good defense. However, even the biggest guy on the block can’t be expected to fight everybody, every time.
From our alliance with France in America’s Revolutionary War in 1788 to our 1949 entrance into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the United States followed George Washington’s advice to avoid permanent entangling military alliances with foreign powers. Now, we have treaties to defend approximately 60 countries on five continents some of which were made 50 or more years ago. I agree with President Ronald Reagan’s Ambassador to the UN, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, that we have to reexamine the reasons for alliances we now have, and we must question why we are spending American money and deploying American manpower to protect affluent and militarily capable nations that are able to defend themselves, unless these nations are crucial to protecting American interests.
We now have 1.5 million men and women in our volunteer military out of a national population of 300 million. In World War II America had a total of 12 million men under arms, both volunteers and draftees, out of a national population of 127 million. Obviously modes of warfare have impacted manpower requirements.
Without the benefit of classified military intelligence briefings, I believe that terrorists, while dangerous, do not in themselves constitute a sufficient threat for America to resort to a compulsory military draft. Nor would I support ongoing expansion of America’s treaty commitments unless they were crucial to protecting American security, because I do not support a compulsory military draft.
I am also very concerned about the sale or transfer of sensitive technologies that have military applications to foreign nations opposed to democratic principles of freedom and human rights. I see no reason to build up countries that oppose us militarily.
I am also concerned about the easing of trade restrictions with China to overcome the nearly $300 Billion trade deficit we have with that country. Sensitive military technologies sold to China could end up in the hands of Iran and Syria. Our national security must not be compromised for financial reasons.
|
