| Behind America's War with Iraq: A Libertarian View as published in the Antelope Valley Press, May, 2003 by Jason Gonella Mr. Gonella is chairman of the Antelope Valley Libertarian Party. This is the AVLP's official position paper on the war with Iraq. Is the war against Iraq constitutional? Is it even moral? The answer is no on both counts. Here's why. No branch of our Federal government has the power to delegate its authority to the other branches. Within the Executive and Judicial branches, authority is delegated with the understanding that the President and the Supreme Court are supreme in their respective branches. All lower courts are answerable to the Supreme Court, and all government agencies are answerable to the President. But Congress cannot give the President the authority to declare war, because it is a legislative and not an executive power. As such, the Authorization for the Use of Force, which is claimed to give our President the authority to declare war on Iraq, is unconstitutional. An empire does not need the classic "look" of an empire to be one. Instead of direct control through armies and governors, puppet governments can be quite effective, as America has long known. Classic empires exacted tribute from the governed areas. The United States, however, employs a trade deficit. The people of the United States purchase foreign goods with Federal Reserve Notes, which are then placed in foreign banks. The holders of those notes can either save them, and thus save value, or spend them, and thus depreciate the value of their holdings. Those same Federal Reserve Notes can also be used to purchase U.S. government bonds, and these are used to finance our national debt. The money is then reinserted into the American Economy, to purchase foreign goods again. Thus, in a more subtle way, we exact tribute from the dependencies of the American Empire. It is possible that said dollars could be used to purchase goods in the United States, but as the United States is a net importer, that would cause inflation, which is the decrease in the value of our dollars. This inflation would be much more rapid than the slow inflation caused by simply accepting and holding the dollars. The whole system depends upon the dollar remaining the reserve currency of the world. If it were supplanted in that role, say by the euro, the people of other countries would accept the dollar only if there is the potential to exchange the dollars received for euros. That would cause a rapid decline in the value of the dollar, which is bad for those who hold dollars, the citizens of the United States in particular. Since it is not being replaced, its value remains slowly and steadily depreciating, instead of the sharp and immediate decline that would occur if the dollar were supplanted. In this context, it is interesting to note that in 2001, Iraq signed a deal with France, to have the reserve currency of Iraq be the euro. From that point on, all Iraqi banks would hold euros instead of dollars. If euros became the currency used to buy oil, then not only would the value of the dollar fall sharply, the United States would find it increasingly difficult to finance its debt. Additionally, it would become necessary to hold euros in United States banks, which would involve buying euros, which would boost their value. The United States cannot print Euros, and this would be the end of the cycle of economic tribute. As more of the world becomes industrialized, the demand for oil will increase. Those who control the flow of oil will control the economies of the more industrialized nations. Some say this war is about oil, which is a gross oversimplification. Others ask, "Why didn't we just take the oil last time?" It's not about the physical oil; it's about controlling the flow of the oil and the currencies accepted for oil. It is a bad idea for any puppet government to acquire delusions of independence, and so these United States went to war against Iraq to maintain the supremacy of the dollar, just like these United States went to war against Afghanistan. Ostensibly, our military action there was to fight terrorism. But if it really were about terrorism, then other countries with terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would also be targets--but those countries have obedient governments. It is not true that opposition to the war means that the person in opposition is in favor of the enemy. It is often the case that the person against the war simply believes that war is a bad idea for the country at that time. Whether the outcome is victory or defeat, the position of whether the war is right and proper is unchanged. If indeed the war is wrong, then even in victory, these United States lose on a moral level. War can be necessary. When one is fighting for one's own liberty, and that of one's family, war is not only necessary, it is justified and honorable. Those who fought for independence in 1776 understood the concept of a just war, because it was liberty that they were fighting for. Each of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was staking his life, fortune, and sacred honor on the principle of liberty. Wars of aggression, however, are neither honorable nor justified, and certainly not necessary. |
Home Volunteer Events Officers In the Media Newsletter Libertarian Links Candidates World's Smallest Political Quiz |