I had an unexpected run-in with none other than Adam Kokesh this morning. Adam is an Iraq War veteran who is now leading the charge to end U.S. wars and occupations around the world. I featured Adam in my video, Ron Paul: Veterans for Peace. If you haven’t already done so, be sure to check out Adam’s awesome work with his independent grassroots media show, Adam Vs The Man.

If you’d like to see me interviewed with Adam, please consider voting for me to be a guest on his show (currently I am in the top 10): http://www.adamvstheman.com/suggestions

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Share/Bookmark

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

In a February 2003 interview on C-SPAN, Congressman Ron Paul explained his litmus test for whether or not a war is worth fighting: if you yourself are willing to lose your life in war or send your kids and grandchildren to war, then you are sincere.

Paul demonstrated incredible foresight with the Iraq War and the troubles it would provoke in the region. What other representative in Washington has demonstrated such consistency, foresight, and principle? Paul has indeed proven to be a “breath of fresh air.”

“I have this terrible habit of wanting to try to be consistent and develop a philosophy that’s coherent.” ~ Ron Paul

Share/Bookmark

We are at a decisive turning point in the story of America. We have set a course for disaster that the status quo cannot fix. We need something far beyond the world of petty party politics. These two parties have created nothing short of a nightmare in Washington. We need new answers.

I myself used to be a neocon. I used to be in favor of our wars overseas. Why should we apologize for America’s greatness? Radical Islamists had to be stopped with aggressive military force, I thought. I was sure that they hated us because we are free. I used to defend George W. Bush in his decision to invade Iraq. On one or more occasions I even defended the adoption of the Patriot Act. I’d ensure people, that “It’s for our own safety. They need it to be able to catch the terrorists.” I am not proud recanting these details, but I have to admit that there was a time when I believed these things.I think a large part of this need to defend the party lines comes from the left-right paradigm that we as a nation seem to be stuck in. We tend to think our party is correct and the other party is flat wrong. We don’t want to be mistaken for that “terrible” other party, so we buy in deeper and deeper into the ideology of our chosen party. Our party may not be perfect, but at least it’s not the other one. The other party, we tend to think, is full of knuckleheads.

As a neocon, the wars in the middle east was definitely a place I fell into the left-right paradigm. This was partly in reaction to the anti-war rallies that had become so popular during Bush’s presidency. As I watched these angry “peace” marches, I found that I just couldn’t get behind it. They seemed to be less about anti-war than they were about anti-Bush. Again I fell into the two party trap. If I didn’t agree with the Bush haters, then I felt I had to defend these endless foreign wars, right? I thought they represented America’s greatness. Didn’t we want to be great?

It is interesting to note that once Obama became president the anti-war movement practically died among Democrats. If those angry peace marches were truly fighting for principle, wouldn’t that principle still stand under a Democratic president that supports aggressive wars as clearly as Obama does? Nothing has changed in our foreign policy, yet the movement virtually vanished. Were they fighting for principle or party?

The same is true for the Tea Party movement. Where were all these fiscal conservatives when Bush was spending his trillions on our undeclared, unconstitutional wars? Where were they when Bush pushed for bailouts? Yet they are all upset when a Democrat president does the same thing. One has to wonder, are the fighting for principle or party?

Ron Paul has helped me see a new way. A way based on principle. A way based on respect and individual liberty. A way based on recognizing the innate basic rights and humanity of all people. He didn’t try to convince us that the US was evil or that we couldn’t be “great,” he simply showed us that our actions have consequences. He introduced us to the concept of “blowback;” the idea that our meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and killing their civilians, creates an understandable ill will towards the US. What if China did the same to us? Wouldn’t we be mad? Ron Paul has showed us that mutual respect and free trade (which by definition should not permit trade sanctions) would go much further to create peace and prosperity throughout the world. He showed us that there was another measure of excellence. One not based on dominance, but one based in mutual respect and freedom.

He has brought a breath of fresh air to the political arena. Instead of carefully crafted empty slogans, he says what he believes, and offers real solutions to today’s problems. He is willing to be unpopular for the sake of telling the truth. In this he is able to step beyond the left-right paradigm.

When I first saw Ron Paul on YouTube in 2007, I was pretty sure he was nuts. I assured myself that he was extreme and unrealistic in his ideas. It seemed a little naive to think that freedom could work in this modern world we live in. Surely we needed more government control than in the days of the Founders.

Bit by bit I started to come around to Paul’s point of view. Maybe we could have the freedom to make decisions for ourselves? After all, government is full of imperfect individuals, what part of them being in Washington means they know the best way to run our lives?

As others argued between a 39% income tax and a 35% income tax, Ron Paul suggested that the concept of an income tax was wrong and we should be able to keep the money we earn. He boldly stated that he was in favor of abolishing the IRS. While others argued about how to fix the economy and rejuvenate the housing market, Paul made us look deeper into the cause of these vicious boom-bust cycles. He showed us that the economy would be better off without government intervention. He put the spotlight on the Federal Reserve as the root of our economic problems as well as being responsible for funding our endless wars and occupations around the world. He was the only candidate who predicted the economic recession that came to pass the following year. When the recession came, people argued how big the bailouts should be, not whether we should even bailing out corporations as Ron Paul suggested. While others argued which countries we should invade, how many troops we should send, and how long we should occupy said countries; Ron Paul asked why we were there at all. He stated the case for a strong national defense, but called for the end of this aggressive militarism around the world. He showed us the wisdom of bringing the troops home from the various 130 countries we have a presence in around the world. He showed us that the wars are a racket and are usually used as a way to undermine personal liberties here at home. He warned us that continuing on this path would spell the end of our republic.

It wasn’t that Ron Paul wanted to somehow go back to some mystical golden age, he simply wanted to use our foundations of the Constitution and liberty to build a new and better future. We have forsaken the principles that made America great and prosperous. We are carelessly throwing away what our Founders fought and died for. He primarily wanted a federal government that followed the dictates of the constitution. On this he has been impeccably consistent throughout his long career as a congressman.

Ron Paul finally was successful in getting me to think about principle above party. He doesn’t care what the Republican Party says about any particular issue. He doesn’t care if his views are popular. He follows the laws of the Constitution and the guidance of his own conscience. As a devout Christian he follows the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” He follows this even in practices he personally finds to be wrong. He recognizes the individual’s right to do whatever he so pleases, as long as he isn’t hurting or coercing another individual. I am eternally grateful to Dr. Paul for bringing principles back into the political arena.

I believe we are now teetering on the edge as a nation. We have an unsustainable debt load, and our government is spending more than ever. We are precariously close to runaway inflation. We are stuck in multiple endless, un-winnable wars (because undeclared and undefined). Our civil liberties have been trampled on by both parties. The Constitution is virtually ignored. Our presidents now have the power to execute American citizens without trial and without even presenting any evidence of guilt. What we have now is not left versus right, but up versus down. We are fighting for the very continuance of our great republic. We are fighting for the principles of freedom and liberty that made America great, but are now an all but forgotten dream. What we need now is to come together, not necessarily to agree, but at least to respect the opinions of other individuals. We need to appreciate the innate human rights in each individual and to recognize that it is not our place to dictate how others should live their lives. Each has the right to live how they deem appropriate.

We can create a better world, but we need to move quickly. If we are smart enough as a nation, we will vote for Ron Paul no matter what party we identify ourselves with. What we have in Washington are two parties that are unwilling to work together, but are in fact not that different from each other. There has been no significant change in our foreign policy (and our willingness to torture people), our respect for civil liberties, and our monetary policy from one administration to the next. These are the issues that are crippling our nation today. A vote for Ron Paul would be a major step in the direction of solving these problems. A vote for anyone else is simply continuing the status quo.

I once asked a wise friend of mine which party he sided with. He replied, “I am for the people.” A simple but profound answer. Why conform to either party, when neither has all the answers. We need more of this attitude today.

Friends of all political persuasions, aren’t you tired of what we’ve been given year after year from Washington? If you’re ready to work to make a better nation, one built on honesty, integrity, and principle, then let’s vote for Ron Paul. I, for one, believe that the fate of our republic depends on it.

Please, my fellow Americans, vote based on principle.

Share/Bookmark

General David Petraeus has stated his belief that the Afghanistan War will last longer the Iraq War. These are somber words considering the Iraq War isn’t close to a conclusion.

Today is the ten year anniversary of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. How many more lives and resources have to be lost before we recognize that this is not a war for peace or security?

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Share/Bookmark

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Why not to vote for Mitt Romney in 2012. Please share this video and spread the word!

Feel free to subscribe to the DavidKretzmann YouTube channel.

Share/Bookmark

Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul earns 38% of the vote to President Obama’s 39% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters. Fourteen percent (14%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) remain undecided.

Also of interest in the report:

Paul, whose long run afoul of the GOP establishment with his libertarian policy prescriptions, picks up 61% of the Republican vote, while 78% of Democrats fall in behind the president. Voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties prefer the longtime congressman by 10 points – 43% to 33%.

Of course, anyone who has researched the voting records and principles of Ron Paul and Barack Obama understands there really is no comparison between the two. After all:

• Ron Paul is actually anti-war and would end the Iraq War; Obama has hardly changed a thing in Iraq.
• Ron Paul would bring all U.S. troops home; Obama has started and expanded new endless wars in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Libya.
• Ron Paul voted against the PATRIOT Act (Obama, on the other hand…)
• Ron Paul predicted the 2008 financial collapse. (“The only candidate who predicted the economic crisis is the only one who can get us out of it.”)
• Ron Paul has voted against every unbalanced budget.
• Ron Paul would legalize marijuana; Obama is currently attacking medical marijuana dispensaries.

These are just several of the facts that demonstrate Ron Paul is a far superior choice to Barack Obama. What others can you think of?

Share/Bookmark

During the 2008 presidential elections, the Iraq War was one of the prime issues discussed in heated debates between both Democrats and Republicans. Some candidates proposed immediate withdrawal, others suggested a time-table of withdrawal, while Senator John McCain stated it’d “be fine with me” if the U.S. occupied Iraq for up to “one hundred years” (crowecole). On November 15, 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama declared “I’m going to bring this war to a close,” and asserted he would pursue a policy of withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of his victory (BarackObamadotcom).

In February 2009, six weeks after winning the presidential elections, President Obama announced that all combat troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by August 31, 2010. The remaining 50,000 non-combat troops were slated to leave by December 31, 2011 (MSNBC). On August 31, 2010, President Obama confirmed the Bush-era mission objectives had come to a conclusion, stating, “Operation Iraqi Freedom is over” (MSNBC). As promised, combat troops were indeed out of Iraq by the scheduled date. The next day, September 1, Vice President Joe Biden presided over a ceremony to usher in “Operation New Dawn,” the new Iraq mission title of the Obama Administration (Southall).

However, this leaves us the question: what are “non-combat” troops? Do they actually not participate in any combat, or is it a sleek way for the U.S. to continue an occupation of Iraq?

On February 27, 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained “those [troops] that are left will have a combat capability.” Gates continued:

There will be, as the president said, targeted counterterrorism operations. There will be continued embeds with some of the Iraqi forces in a training capacity and so on. (Gates)

Gates’ explanation makes it clear that non-combat forces are expected to participate in ongoing violent conflicts within Iraq. He says “the mission has changed” and the method of combat “will be completely different” from the policies pursued prior to Obama’s presidency.

It seems to me that “non-combat troops” is a gross misrepresentation of the actual duties of the remaining 50,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Yes, the mission has been altered and the focus of combat has shifted (a debatable point, some might counter), but that doesn’t change the fact that remaining troops are realistically engaged in violent and dangerous activities. Changing the name of the mission and the titles of the soldiers doesn’t change the reality of the actual war being fought on the ground.

On November 9, 2010, the Associated Press reported the “United States is open to the idea of keeping troops in Iraq past a deadline to leave next year if Iraq asks for it.” The article continued on the possibility of U.S. troops staying in Iraq past 2011:

U.S. and Iraqi officials have said for months that they expect Iraqi leaders to eventually ask for an extension of the military agreement with the U.S., but the political impasse has put the idea on hold. (The Associated Press)

This is critical because “Operation New Dawn” may not be as quick and simple of a process as people expected. Defense Secretary Gates does not paint a picture of a secure, reliable Iraqi government, and takes little hesitation to propose keeping U.S. forces there if it’s requested by a legitimate Iraqi group. I am not debating if this is a smart strategic military move, but rather using Gates’ words to question the dependability of the Obama Administration’s withdrawal date for non-combat troops. To put it bluntly, I believe the withdrawal date is not set in stone and it would not be out of the question for the date to extend indefinitely if the security situation in Iraq fails to improve.

One issue that gains relatively small media and political coverage is the role of contractors in the Iraq War. A July 2, 2010 report compiled by Moshe Schwartz, a specialist in defense acquisition, for the Congressional Research Service states as of March 2010 there were “95,461 DOD contractor personnel in Iraq compared to approximately 95,900 uniformed personnel” (Schwartz 7). The most common tasks performed by DOD contractors in Iraq are “Base Support” (facilities management, grounds maintenance, etc.) and “Security” (8).

The Department of State (DS) also hires Private Security Contractors (PSCs) and other contractor positions. On June 21, 2010, Deputy Assistant Security Charlene Lamb explained “the military withdrawal from Iraq will prompt a larger operational role for DS.” She continues in more detail, “DS anticipates that we will need between 6,000 and 7,000 security contractors to meet requirements in Baghdad,” and estimates show “2,200 PSC movement security personnel and as many as 4,600 PSC static guard personnel could be needed to secure these new facilities and support Department programs” (Lamb).

Contractors are not sitting in the background of the Iraq War performing minute tasks; they participate in dangerous operations and are most definitely a part of the action (as would be expected in a war). This is evidenced by the 468 confirmed contractor deaths in Iraq since the war began in 2003 (iCasualties.org). Contractors are very much involved in combat (both directly and indirectly), and must be part of any discussions of withdrawal from Iraq.

While “combat troops” are being withdrawn from Iraq, Charlene Lamb gives the impression that the State Department is essentially planning to fill the void left by the withdrawing troops with more private contractors. It is a mere shift of duties; more of the load is being placed on private contractors hired by the State and Defense Departments. Typically there have been more contractors than troops in Iraq, so the end of the Iraq War means not only the withdrawal of troops but of contractors as well. Contractors are private citizens paid and hired by the DOD and are an integral part of the Iraq occupation, yet the Obama Administration has not been forthright in discussing when or if contractors will be withdrawn. How can the War possibly be over if thousands of private contractors continue the duties of previous occupying forces?

Representative Ron Paul, a Congressman from Texas, is one of the few Republicans in office who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning under the Bush Administration. On December 21, 2001, Ron Paul vocally opposed the resolution to invade Iraq, explaining that invading Iraq “could serve to further Osama bin Laden’s twisted plans for a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West” (Paul). Representative Paul is not convinced that the withdrawal of combat troops means anything significant to ending the War in Iraq. “After eight long draining years,” Paul says, “I have to wonder if our government even understands what it is to end a war anymore.” Paul argues the drawdown of “combat troops” was nothing more than “political maneuvering and semantics in order to convince an increasingly war-weary public that the Iraq War is at last ending” (Paul).

In response to President Obama’s speech announcing the final removal of combat troops and the new era of “Operation New Dawn,” Representative Paul issued a press release stating, “The President’s announcement that all U.S. combat troops have left Iraq is no more believable than the ‘Mission Accomplished’ declaration was in 2003.” Because the 50,000 remaining troops will continue to carry guns and engage in combat missions, several U.S. military bases remain in Iraq, and the number of contractors in Iraq is expected to increase, Paul concludes the Obama Administration’s “new policy is not one of peace but merely a charade” (Business Wire).

Having observed and analyzed this evidence, I have little doubt that there is no foreseeable end in sight with U.S. military involvement in Iraq, particularly when accounting for the looseness of our final withdrawal date in 2011 and the federal government’s escalation of private military contractors in Iraq. The 50,000 armed forces that remain in Iraq today are still engaging in combat missions; little has changed except for their job title. I place value in the words of Representative Ron Paul, someone who adamantly opposed the War from the beginning after the events of September 11, when he calls it an “endless war” (Paul). There is no visible exit strategy proposed by the Obama Administration that takes into consideration the increased role of private contractors and the ongoing combat involvement with remaining troops. The U.S. remains militarily active in Iraq both with “non-combat troops” and private contractors and, judging from the Obama Administration’s actions thus far, there is no conscientious effort to pull out all U.S. forces and bring the War to a close.

Cited Sources

“McCain: 100 years in Iraq ‘would be fine with me’”. YouTube.com. 5 January 2008. crowecole. 4 December 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk>

“Las Vegas Debate: Barack Obama on Iraq”. YouTube.com. 15 November 2007. BarackObamadotcom. 4 December 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFbMz9lpxMQ>

“Obama sets date to end Iraq combat mission”. MSNBC. 27 February 2009. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29371588/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/ (4 December 2010)

“Obama’s full speech: ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom is over’”. MSNBC. 31 August 2010.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38944049/ns/politics-white_house/ (4 December 2010)

Southall, Ashley. “The Early Word: Operation New Dawn”. The New York Times. 1 September 2010. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/the-early-word-operation-new-dawn/ (4 December 2010)

Gates, Robert. “Press Conference Call with Secretary Gates on President Obama’s Troop Withdrawal Plan”. GlobalSecurity.org. 27 February 2009. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/02/mil-090227-dod01.htm (4 December 2009)

“Gates: US open to request from Iraq to stay”. The Associated Press. 9 November 2010. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6l0KDe5kZGkWiL1AzaP6Wm9aZxg (4 December 2010)

Schwartz, Moshe. “Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis”. Congressional Research Service. 2 July 2010. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40764.pdf (5 December 2010)

“Iraq Coalition Casualties: Contractors – A Partial List”. iCasualties.org. 15 Sept. 2010. Web. 5 December 2010.

Lamb, Charlene. “Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene Lamb’s Remarks on Private Contractors in Iraq”. U.S. Department of State. 21 June 2010. http://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/rm/143420.htm (5 December 2010)

Paul, Ron. “Statement in Opposition to House Resolution on Iraq”. paul.house.gov. 19 December 2001.
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=370&Itemid=60 (5 December 2009)

Paul, Ron. “Iraq – An End or an Escalation?”. paul.house.gov. 30 August 2010. http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1767&Itemid=69 (5 Dec. 2010)

“Ron Paul on Obama’s Iraq Speech: Mission Not Accomplished”. Business Wire. 1 September 2010.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100901006229/en/Ron-Paul-Obama’s-Iraq-Speech-Mission-Accomplished (5 December 2010)

Share/Bookmark