Dr. Tulippe says that it is a war that we can sit out:

While this map casts doubts on the prospects for world peace, it also reveals the central irony of America’s “War on Terror”: The United States of America is the only major world power that is not forced by geography into a conflict with Dar-al Islam.

America does not border the Islamic world. It has a statistically insignificant Muslim population that is better assimilated than that of any other Western nation. America is bounded on its east and west by vast oceans and to the north and south by two militarily weak and predominantly Christian nations.

The irony resides, of course, in the fact that despite these blessings, America is the nation doing most of the fighting against radical Islam.

When analyzing the likely course of these civilizational struggles – and plotting a strategy for America to deal with them – one must also recognize another important fact: The ultimate outcome of Islam’s civilizational wars has already been determined. Radical Islam is not a viable paradigm upon which a modern society can be built. It is destined, like communism before it, to collapse from within. The trajectory of political Islam can already be seen in Iran, where it first came to power. As a governing system, the Islamic Republic has been discredited in the eyes of the masses and survives mostly by repression and manipulation. Economically and culturally, it is an utter failure.

Furthermore, radical Islam is not now, nor will it ever be, a civilizational threat to America. Nor will it conquer the world or overturn modern civilization. These goals are simply beyond its capacity.

When these two ideas are considered together (i.e. the lack of geopolitical conflict between America and Islam, and the inevitable collapse of Islam as a political ideology), America’s most prudent path becomes obvious: The United States should withdraw from the Middle East and declare itself a non-belligerent in Islam’s civilizational wars. In so doing, America can avoid the casualties and ruinous costs of wars which have nothing to do with our national survival.

If Dr. Tulippe’s analysis is correct, it is only hubris which keeps us in this conflict.

Please tell me which of these groups we must beat in order to declare victory.

Then tell me which is going to get on their flying carpets to come “over here” if we don’t beat them “over there”?

The United States Constitution

Article I

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

…

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Congress has the power to declare war and to mount reprisals. This power does not reside in the President. So, does the recent White House statement of policy regarding Iran conflict with this?

Amendments on Iran: The Administration strongly opposes amendments to the bill to restrict the ability of the United States to deal effectively with the threats to regional security posed by the conduct of Iran, including Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The Administration also notes that provisions of law that purport to direct or prohibit international negotiations, covert action, or use of the armed forces are inconsistent with the Constitution’s commitment exclusively to the presidency of the executive power, the function of Commander-in-Chief, and the authority to conduct the Nation’s foreign policy. If the bill were presented to the President with provisions that would prevent the President from protecting America and allied and cooperating nations from threats posed by Iran, the President’ senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Does this mean that the President thinks he has the right to start a war with Iran? Will Congress, again, transfer its authority to the President to do such a thing rather than following the Constitution and declaring war or issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal?

Gary North thinks (subscription needed) that it is inevitable that Bush will start war with Iran because of the above policy announcement combined with an amendment to a defense appropriations bill by Lieberman.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Senators Lieberman, McCain, Kyl, Graham, and Coleman today introduced a bipartisan amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, confronting the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran over its proxy attacks on American soldiers in Iraq.
The amendment details the publicly available evidence put forward over the past year by General David Petraeus, commanding general of Multi-National Force Iraq, and others about Iran’s violent and destabilizing activities in Iraq.

The amendment states that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility against the United States,” and demands the government of Iran “take immediate action” to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias and insurgents. The amendment also mandates a regular report on Iran’s anti-coalition activity in Iraq.

“For many months, our military commanders and diplomats have warned us that the Iranian government has been training, equipping, arming, and funding proxies in Iraq who are murdering our troops,” said Senator Lieberman. “This amendment is a common sense, common ground statement of the Senate to Tehran: we know what you are doing, and you must stop.”

“American officials attest that the government in Teheran seeks to bleed the United States and render unsuccessful our efforts to bring about a stable and self-governing in Iraq,” said Senator McCain. “This amendment will send a clear signal: Iran’s activities in Iraq are wrong, and they must end immediately.”

“The Iranians are attempting to thwart our policies in the Middle East by actively supporting terrorists who are killing our troops in Iraq,” said Senator Kyl. “It is time we acknowledge this hostility against us, and this amendment tells the Iranians we will not tolerate any actions which threaten our troops or allies.”

“The evidence is increasingly clear the Iranian government is working to destabilize the Iraqi government,” said Senator Graham. “It is long past time for Congress to speak out about this destructive behavior by Iran. We need one voice, and I expect it will be a unified bipartisan voice, speaking out and condemning these actions by the Iranian government.”

“The United States will not tolerate Iran’s hostile attempts to sabotage our efforts in the Middle East region,” said Senator Coleman. “On my last trip to Iraq, our Minnesota troops in Southern Iraq showed me Iranian-made explosives that were used against them on convoy missions. This crucial amendment makes it clear to the Iranian government, and any other government in the region that seeks to harm our soldiers, that providing any form of support to Iraqi insurgents will not be tolerated and must cease immediately.”

It passed.

Will this be used as Constitutional authority allowing Bush to go into Iran? I hope not. Bush doesn’t have the backing of the country to do something like this. Our elected representatives should follow the Constitution, debate this issue and vote. They should do the job the Constitution set out for them.

I have become convinced that the actions of Congress in not debating and declaring war on Iraq was cowardice. The members are too cowardly to go on the record.

If the Constitution is followed, the chances of the US ever going to war would be much less. Wasn’t that one of the purposes of the division of powers? Our Founders, after all, saw European autocrats constantly mounting wars against each other.

I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t believe a word the Administration is saying about the government of Iran being behind anything. It should have to convince the American people through the institutions laid out the in the Constitution–debating and voting in Congress.

Two years ago, I went to Crawford to support the troops against Sheehan’s gang. The occupation of Iraq has gone on and on. I reached a point, after viewing the nuttiness of the Arab street over the Mohammed cartoons and concluded that we are crazy for spending our young people’s lives and our money (borrowed from the Chinese) to help them “nation-build”.

I think that, for a while, I left republican (in the philosophical sense) principles and went with the flow. I’ve backtracked, and now, I don’t even recognize those on the right anymore. For years, conservatives have lamented censorship of their ideas. Now they want to censor Ron Paul?

I’m going back to the conservatism of Russell Kirk.

I’m supporting Ron Paul for President.

I agree with Ron Paul’s take on the issue