http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/opinion/paul-syria-obama/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. On one side we have al Qaeda; on the other side we have Syria's authoritarian president Bashar al-Assad. On one side we have Islamic jihadists; on the other side we have Christians. In all likelihood the al-Assad regime has used chemical weapons to kill civilians. And without a doubt Islamic rebels have kidnapped and killed priests and civilians. It seems on all sides we have violence and chaos and it is unclear if any side will, in the end, be a friend of the United States. The Constitution gave the power to declare war to Congress. One of our founding fathers, James Madison, specifically argued that the executive branch was most prone to war and for that reason, the power to declare war was vested with the legislature. If the debate were to come to Congress, two great ironies would have to be overcome: 1. The arms supplied to the Islamic rebels may well be used against Christians; 2. The Islamic rebels we aim to arm are allied with al Qaeda. The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States, and victory by either side will not necessarily bring into power people friendly to the United States. I don't always agree with Paul, but when it comes to foreign policy, we really could use a guy like him as a head of state. The same president who promised an era of change hasn't done much other than repeat most of Bush's mistakes. The antiwar voices who spoke out against Bush's abuses seem to have gone completely silent now. Even Bush got the approval of Congress for his interventions. Obama has instead used the War Powers Act as if the legislature's voice is irrelevant.
