"Another term for preventive war is aggressive war - starting wars because someday somebody might do something to us. That is not part of the American tradition"
About this Quote
Ron Paul draws a sharp line between preempting an imminent attack and launching a preventive war based on conjecture about future threats. Preventive war wagers blood and treasure on predictions, transforming uncertainty into a casus belli. By calling it aggressive war, he links the practice to what Nuremberg condemned and what the UN Charter restricts, where self-defense requires an armed attack or at least a truly imminent one. Speculation is not a legal or moral foundation for war.
The appeal to American tradition frames a constitutional and historical critique. The founders distrusted standing armies, vested the power to declare war in Congress, and warned against entangling alliances and crusading abroad. George Washington counseled restraint; John Quincy Adams said America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. The ideal animating those statements is defensive strength paired with restraint, not open-ended campaigns to manage hypothetical dangers.
Paul spoke most forcefully during the post-9/11 era, when the Bush Doctrine asserted a right to strike potential threats, culminating in the 2003 Iraq invasion. That war rested on claims about weapons programs and intentions that did not materialize, making it the paradigm of prevention. The aftermath illustrated the hazards he flags: erosion of global legitimacy, blowback that multiplies threats, expansion of executive power at home, and fiscal burdens that outlast the initial decision.
There is tension between the tradition Paul invokes and episodes of American expansion or regime change, from Mexico to the Philippines. His point is normative: the best American tradition is the one worth reclaiming, where force is constrained by law, imminence, and accountability. When the threshold shifts from evidence to fear, wars become easier to start and harder to end. A republic that fights only when it must preserves both liberty and credibility. A nation that fights because someday somebody might do something courts permanent war and the moral corrosion that follows.
The appeal to American tradition frames a constitutional and historical critique. The founders distrusted standing armies, vested the power to declare war in Congress, and warned against entangling alliances and crusading abroad. George Washington counseled restraint; John Quincy Adams said America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. The ideal animating those statements is defensive strength paired with restraint, not open-ended campaigns to manage hypothetical dangers.
Paul spoke most forcefully during the post-9/11 era, when the Bush Doctrine asserted a right to strike potential threats, culminating in the 2003 Iraq invasion. That war rested on claims about weapons programs and intentions that did not materialize, making it the paradigm of prevention. The aftermath illustrated the hazards he flags: erosion of global legitimacy, blowback that multiplies threats, expansion of executive power at home, and fiscal burdens that outlast the initial decision.
There is tension between the tradition Paul invokes and episodes of American expansion or regime change, from Mexico to the Philippines. His point is normative: the best American tradition is the one worth reclaiming, where force is constrained by law, imminence, and accountability. When the threshold shifts from evidence to fear, wars become easier to start and harder to end. A republic that fights only when it must preserves both liberty and credibility. A nation that fights because someday somebody might do something courts permanent war and the moral corrosion that follows.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Ron
Add to List
