Barack Obama has slid past the anti-war crowd despite escalating the war in Afghanistan, indefinitely remaining in Iraq, not to mention the numerous bombings in Pakistan.

What America needs most today is a peace movement, a broad-based coalition that opposes not only the American empire’s operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (as well as less overt activities elsewhere), but also their attendant accretion of presidential power, which diminishes or eliminates civil liberties and the traditional protections accorded criminal suspects.

Unfortunately, there have been impediments to the development of this long-overdue movement. People on the Right typically are not inclined to oppose wars. Even if they are uneasy about a given war, they equate anti-war activity with left-wing opposition to the military, failure to support the troops, and lack of patriotism. If a Republican is running the war, they are even less likely to make a fuss. Some on the Right are authentically anti-empire and are ready to join an anti-war coalition, but they seem to be waiting for others to take the initiative.

The Left of course is much more comfortable opposing war and executive power and did so during the reign of George W. Bush. But they can alienate potential nonleft coalition members by stressing their interventionist domestic agenda.

A more recent problem with the Left is Barack Obama. With a few exceptions, Obama’s election has silenced the critics of empire, invasion, occupation, Predator bombings, and civil-liberties destruction. Maybe they feel he is one of them, so they are giving him time to get settled in before he begins to dismantle the empire. Well, Obama is into his 17th month and there has been scant progress on that front. It’s safe to say that he has no intention of scaling back, much less liquidating the empire.

Maybe that’s why a group of prominent leftist intellectuals, activists, and actors has ended the ceasefire and has finally criticized Obama’s war policies. It’s about time. In a statement placed in the New York Review of Books, headlined “Crimes Are Crimes No Matter Who Does Them,” the group said, “Crimes under Bush are crimes under Obama and must be resisted by anyone who claims a shred of conscience.”

Hear, hear!

The group specifically referred to Obama’s ordering the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen and radical Muslim cleric living in Yemen, “because he is suspected of participating in plots by Al Qaeda.” The statement notes that “Al-Awlaki denies these charges. No matter. Without trial or other judicial proceeding, the administration has simply put him on the to-be-killed list.”

The Obama administration claims it has the right to kill people such as al-Awlaki, who has been linked to the shooter at Fort Hood and the would-be airplane bomber over Detroit last year. This is an extraordinary claim of unilateral executive power. Al-Awlaki, who has made inflammatory statements about killing American civilians, is not operating on a traditional battlefield but rather is suspected — having never been charged or tried — of engaging in illegal activities.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=883

Great discussion on the House floor from Ron Paul, one of the few members of Congress who understands the flawed logic of sanctions and the false accusations against Iran. Sanctions do not come instead of war, they merely open the door for war and violence. If the U.S. really thinks that blocking free trade in numerous countries around the world will lead to peace, we are in trouble.

“All Warfare is Deception… There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.” – Sun Tzu, circa 250 BC

Summary: I will not approve spending to extend this unconstitutional war of aggression against Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Congressman, I will drive for a rapid immediate and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan and redeployment to protect America’s sieve-like borders. I support increasing the reward for the capture of Osama Bin Laden forty times from $27 million to over $1 billion. I support issuing constitutional letters of marque to bring indicted terrorists to justice in a court of law.
(more…)

Today foreign policy has largely taken a backseat to the economy as the main issue being discussed locally and nationally. But foreign affairs have done anything but settle down over the past several months.

During the Presidential debates between Senators’ Obama and McCain, the main debate on foreign policy was over how to best invade and increase forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The two did their best to separate themselves from each other on the issue, but in the Senate they have both voted similarly on key foreign policy legislation. Whether it be the FISA bill in 2008 granting immunity to telecommunication businesses wiretapping phones under federal order, or consistently voting to continue funding the Iraq War over the years. By looking at their voting records we can see that Obama and McCain have largely seen eye to eye on foreign policy.

Today, the lack of change in foreign policy is apparent. The marines currently in Iraq are beginning transfer to Afghanistan, and more troops are planned to be brought into the country this year. The “Iraq withdrawal” plan has turned into nothing but a cover to continue the occupation of 35,000 to 50,000 “residual force” troops beyond 2010. The body count in Pakistan, from U.S. attacks, continues to rise since late January when the Obama Administration began its operation. Despite protests from the Pakistani government, these attacks are expected to continue increasingly in the days ahead.

True debate on foreign policy has been disregarded and ignored for quite some time. Ever since World War 1, the United States has taken a larger military role in world activities. As we have seen with Obama, McCain, and Bush, the principles have remained the same: continue and increase interventions in the Middle East, keep thousands of troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time, and hardly a thing is mentioned about the countless troops placed worldwide in Europe, Korea, South America, and many other countries.

The core problem with U.S. foreign policy is very similar to the core problems of the federal government’s escalated domestic involvement with the economy. It is a short-term focused approach that does not account for individual responsibility, long-term sustainability, or the effects of blowback tomorrow because of yesterday’s actions.

The principles of domestic and foreign policy that a nation takes are very much intertwined with each other. A government heavily involved in foreign policy will lead to a government much more involved domestically, and visa-versa.

While the effects may not be immediately seen, it can’t be interpreted as a mere coincidence that U.S. entanglement overseas greatly escalated after the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Service were created in 1913. The power to print money and tax private property will lead to an expanded, intrusive government domestically, and in the long run that government will not hold back from expanding overseas.

What is it that we stand for? Democracy? Individual liberty, freedom, and right to one’s life are what we have fought for since 1776; not a majority rule through democracy. No matter how worthy or incredible a system may be, not one political, economic, or social system can be spread through force and sanctions without weakening or completely destroying its reputation.

The U.S. has pursued a foreign policy approach resembling that of a bully, rather than a beacon of freedom. How can we say that spending nearly 20 years in Iraq has spread American ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Spreading principles cannot work if it is done through force, whether it be with the economy or dealing with a foreign country.  Leading by example, proving that freedom works, showing that free individuals can achieve more than use of military force, will bring about much more powerful, effective, and respected solutions of peace and prosperity worldwide.