When the folks at Antiwar.com asked me to write a note to help them raise funds I immediately accepted for several reasons.
First of all, because I’m a longtime reader, almost since the beginning (1995!). Their news section is indispensable. Jason Ditz’s news briefs keep me up to the minute. Their editorial content is varied, non-partisan, and often challenging. And I mean that in the best way. Of course I don’t always agree with Justin Raimondo – actually, I almost always do! – but he’s always interesting and principled. And he’s a terrific writer!
Secondly, it’s important that Antiwar.com exists – because all the worst people would be ecstatic if it didn’t. As war clouds loom on the horizon, this high-traffic high-quality site is more important than ever.
And one more reason: Antiwar.com has been consistently right about the major foreign policy issues of the day. They’ve had the courage to challenge what "everybody knows" – and were vindicated when the conventional wisdom was finally overturned.
Turn on your television set, or look at the op-ed page of your paper: there you’ll see the "experts" who have been wrong about everything. These people were wrong about Iraq, wrong about Afghanistan, wrong about Libya, etc. ad nauseam. Yet they’re still collecting paychecks, still basking in the spotlight.
Isn’t it about time we rewarded truth-telling instead of error?
President Trump said his gut tells him to get out of Afghanistan, but after giving it some more thought – with the help of his generals – he’s decided to expand US military actions rather than to wind the war down. Were the conclusions leading him to make this decision based on solid analysis and fact? Not at all! The only thing really “new” about this new strategy is that it is now official policy to never tell what US objectives are in the country! Our take on the President’s speech in today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
As a private citizen and presidential candidate, Donald Trump railed against the Afghan war. A waste, he said. Americans should withdraw, he said. But in last night’s speech, Trump went against his own instincts (so he said) and went with the failed policies of his predecessors. The war will continue, no timetable set, no troop levels determined, with conditions on the ground dictating America’s actions, according to the president.
What caught my attention, beyond the usual paeans of praise to America’s “warriors” and “warfighters,” was the specious reasoning to justify the continuation of the war. Trump gave three reasons, so let’s take them one at a time:
“First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives …”
It’s piss-poor reasoning to argue that, because a lot of people have sacrificed and died in a war, the war should continue (with more people dying) to justify those previous sacrifices. By this logic, the more who die, the more we should keep fighting, meaning more dead, meaning more fighting, and so on. Where is the honor and “worthy” outcome here?
President Trump will unveil his new strategy for Afghanistan tonight. Will he do the sensible thing and end the failed longest war in history? Or will he continue doing the same thing and expect that somehow he will “win” the war? Does he even know what “winning” looks like? Today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report is joined by Future of Freedom Foundation president Jacob Hornberger to preview what the president may say…and why:
Adam Liptak wrote in the New York Times several days ago that law schools are preparing to delve into numerous Constitutional questions that have been brought to a head by the Trump presidency, not the least of which is:
“Must Congress authorize a nuclear strike against North Korea?”
Case in point: a conference taking place in Cambridge on November 4 will address the question, “Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons: Is it Legal? Is it Constitutional? Is it Just?” The affiliations of the speakers – including Yale Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, MIT – tend to affirm Liptak’s suggestion that this is a question that is being taken up in law schools and on campuses nationwide.