[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 53 (Thursday, April 22, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2354-H2356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE REAL LESSONS OF 9/11

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we are constantly admonished to remember the 
lessons of 9/11. Of course, the real issue is not remembering, but 
rather knowing what the pertinent lesson of that sad day is. The 9/11 
Commission will soon release its report after months of fanfare by 
those whose reputations are at stake.
  The many hours and dollars spent on the investigation may well reveal 
little we do not already know, while ignoring the most important 
lessons that should be learned from this egregious attack on our 
homeland. Common sense already tells us the tens of billions of dollars 
spent by the agencies of government whose job it is to promote security 
and intelligence for our country failed.
  A full-fledged investigation into the bureaucracy may help us in the 
future, but one should never pretend that a government bureaucracy can 
be made efficient. It is the very nature of a bureaucracy to be 
inefficient. Spending an inordinate amount of time finger-pointing will 
distract from the real lessons of 9/11. Which agency, which department, 
or which individual receives the most blame should not be the main 
purpose of the investigation.
  Despite the seriousness of our failure to prevent the attacks, it is 
disturbing to see how politicized the whole investigation has become. 
Which political party receives the greatest blame is a high-stakes 
election-year event and distracts from the real lessons ignored by both 
sides.
  Everyone I have heard speak on the issue has assumed that the 9/11 
attacks resulted from the lack of government action. No one in 
Washington has raised the question of whether our shortcomings brought 
to light by 9/11 could have been a result of too much government. 
Possibly in the final report we will hear this discussed, but, to date, 
no one has questioned the assumption that we need more government and, 
of course, though elusive, a more efficient one. The failure to 
understand the nature of the enemy who attacked us on 9/11, along with 
a predetermined decision to initiate a preemptive war against Iraq, 
prompted our government to deceive the people into believing that 
Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks on New York and 
Washington.
  The majority of the American people still contend that the war 
against Iraq was justified because of the events of 
9/11. These misinterpretations have led to many U.S. military deaths 
and casualties prompting a growing number of Americans to question the 
wisdom of our presence and purpose in a strange, foreign land 6,000 
miles from our shores.
  The neocon defenders of our policy in Iraq speak of the benefits that 
we have brought to the Iraqi people: removal of a violent dictator, 
liberation, democracy and prosperity. That the world is a safer place 
is yet to be proven. So far it is just not so.
  If all of this were true, the resistance against our occupation would 
not be growing. We ought to admit we have not been welcomed as 
liberators as was promised by the proponents of the war. Though we hear 
much about the so-called benefits we have delivered to the Iraqi people 
and the Middle East, we hear little talk of the cost to the American 
people: lives lost, soldiers maimed for life, uncounted thousands sent 
home with diseased bodies and minds, billions of dollars consumed, and 
a major cloud placed over U.S. markets and the economy.
  Sharp political divisions reminiscent of the 1960s are rising at 
home. Failing to understand why 9/11 happened and looking for a 
bureaucratic screw-up to explain the whole thing, while using the event 
to start an unprovoked war unrelated to 9/11, have dramatically 
compounded the problems all Americans and the world face.
  Evidence has shown that there was no connection between Saddam 
Hussein and the guerrilla attacks on New

[[Page H2355]]

York and Washington. And since no weapons of mass destruction were 
found, other reasons are given for invading Iraq.

                              {time}  1830

  The real reasons are either denied or ignored: oil, neoconservative, 
empire building and our support for Israel over the Palestinians.
  The proponents of the Iraqi war do not hesitate to impugn the 
character of those who point out the shortcomings of current policy, 
calling them unpatriotic and appeasers of terrorism. It is said that 
they are responsible for the growing armed resistance and for the 
killing of American soldiers. It is conveniently ignored that if the 
opponents of the current policy had had their way, not one single 
American would have died, nor would tens of thousands of Iraqi 
civilians have suffered the same fate. Al Qaeda and many new militant 
groups would not be enjoying a rapid growth in their ranks.
  By denying that our sanctions and bombs brought havoc to Iraq, it is 
easy to play the patriot card and find a scapegoat to blame. We are 
never at fault and never responsible for bad outcomes of what many 
believe is, albeit well-intentioned, interference in the affairs of 
others 6,000 miles from our shores. Pursuing our policy has boiled down 
to testing our resolve.
  It is said by many who did not even want to go to war that now we 
have no choice but to stay the course. They argue that it is a noble 
gesture to be courageous and continue no matter how difficult the task. 
But that should not be the issue. It is not a question of resolve, but 
rather a question of wise policy. If the policy is flawed, and the 
world and our people are less safe for it, unshakable resolve is the 
opposite of what we need.
  Staying the course only makes sense when the difficult tasks are 
designed to protect our country and to thwart those who pose a direct 
threat to us. Wilsonian idealism of self-sacrifice to make the world 
safe for democracy should never be an excuse to wage preemptive war, 
especially since it almost never produces the desired results. There 
are always too many unintended consequences.
  In our effort to change the political structure of Iraq, we continue 
alliances with dictators and even develop new ones with countries that 
are anything but democracies. We have a close alliance with Pakistan, 
Saudi Arabia, and many other Arab dictatorships, and a new one with 
Qadhafi of Libya. This should raise questions about the credibility of 
our commitment to promoting democracy in Iraq, which even our own 
governments would not tolerate. Show me one neocon that would accept a 
national election that would put the radical Shiites in charge. As 
Secretary Rumsfeld said, it is not going to happen.
  These same people are condemning the recent democratic decisions made 
in Spain. We should remember that since World War II, in 35 U.S. 
attempts to promote democracy around the world, none have succeeded. 
Proponents of war too often fail to contemplate the unintended 
consequences of an aggressive foreign policy. So far, the antiwar 
forces have not been surprised with the chaos that has now become 
Iraq's, or Iran's participation, but even they cannot know all the 
long-term shortcomings of such a policy.
  In an eagerness to march on Baghdad, the neocons gloated, and I heard 
them, of the shock and awe that was about to hit the Iraqi people. It 
turns out that the real shock and awe is that we are further from peace 
in Iraq than we were a year ago. And Secretary Rumsfeld admits his own 
surprise.
  The only policy now offered is to escalate the war and avenge the 
death of American soldiers. If they kill 10 of our troops, we will kill 
100 of theirs. Up until now, announcing the number of Iraqi deaths has 
purposely been avoided, but the new policy proclaims our success by 
announcing the number of Iraqis killed. But the more we kill, the 
greater becomes the incitement of the radical Islamic militant.
  The harder we try to impose our will on them, the greater the 
resistance becomes. Amazingly, our occupation has done what was at one 
time thought to be impossible. It has united the Sunnis and the Shiites 
against our presence. Although this is probably temporary, it is real 
and has deepened our problems in securing Iraq. The results are 
escalations of the conflict and the requirements for more troops. This 
acceleration of the killing is called pacification, a bit of 1984 
newspeak.
  The removing of Saddam Hussein has created a stark irony. The 
willingness and intensity of the Iraqi people to fight for their 
homeland has increased manyfold. Under Saddam Hussein essentially no 
resistance occurred. Instead of jubilation and parades for the 
liberators, we face much greater and unified effort to throw out all 
foreigners than when Saddam Hussein was in charge.
  It is not whether the Commission investigation of the causes of 9/11 
is unwarranted, if the Commissioners are looking in the wrong places 
for answers, it is whether much will be achieved.
  I am sure we will hear that the bureaucracy failed, whether it was 
the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Council or all of them, for 
failure to communicate with each other. This will not answer the 
question of why we were attacked and why our defenses were so poor. 
Even though $40 billion are spent on intelligence gathering each year, 
the process failed us.
  Now, it is likely to be said that what we need is more money and more 
efficiency. Yet that approach fails to recognize that depending on 
government agencies to be efficient is a risky assumption. We should 
support any effort to make the intelligence agencies more effective, 
but one thing is certain: More money will not help. Of the $40 billion 
spent annually for intelligence, too much is spent on nation building 
and activities unrelated to justified surveillance.
  There are two other lessons that must be learned if we hope to 
benefit by studying and trying to explain the disaster that hit us on 
9/11. If we fail to learn them, we cannot be made safer, and the 
opposite is more likely to occur. The first point is to understand who 
assumes the most responsibility for securing our homes and businesses 
in a free society. It is not the police. There are too few of them, and 
it is not their job to stand guard outside our houses and places of 
business. More crime occurs in the inner city where there are not only 
more police, but more restrictions on property owners' rights to bear 
and use weapons if invaded by hoodlums. In safer rural areas where 
every home has a gun and someone in it who is willing to use it, there 
is no false dependency on the police protecting them, but full reliance 
on the owner's responsibility to deal with any property violators. This 
understanding works rather well, at least better than in the inner 
cities where the understanding is totally different.
  How does this apply to the 9/11 tragedies? The airline owners accept 
the rules of the inner city rather than that of rural America. They all 
assume that the government was in charge of airline security, and, 
unfortunately, by law it was. Not only were the airlines complacent 
about security, but the FAA dictated all the rules relating to 
potential hijacking. Chemical plants or armored truck companies that 
carry money make the opposite assumptions, and private guns do a 
reasonably good job in providing security. Evidently we think more of 
our money and chemical plants than we do our passengers on airplanes.
  The complacency of the airlines is one thing, but the intrusiveness 
of the FAA is another. Two specific regulations proved to be disastrous 
for dealing with the thugs who, without even a single gun, took over 
four airlines and created the havoc of 9/11. Both the prohibition 
against guns being allowed in the cockpit and precise instructions that 
crews not resist hijackers contributed immensely to the horrors of 9/
11. Instead of immediately legalizing a natural right of personal self-
defense guaranteed by an explicit second amendment freedom, we still do 
not have armed pilots in the sky.
  Instead of more responsibility given to the airline companies, the 
government has taken over the entire process. This has been encouraged 
by the airline owners, who seek subsidies and insurance protection. Of 
course, the nonsense of never resisting has been forever vetoed by 
passengers.
  Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored. 
I am sure the Commission will not relate

[[Page H2356]]

our foreign policy of interventionism, practiced by both major parties 
for over 100 years, to being seriously flawed and the most important 
reason 9/11 occurred. Instead, the claims will stand that the 
motivation behind 9/11 was our freedoms, prosperity and our way of 
life. If this error persists, all the tinkering and money to improve 
the intelligence gathering will bear little fruit.
  Over the years the entire psychology of national defense has been 
completely twisted. Very little attention has been directed towards 
protecting our national borders and providing homeland security.
  Our attention all too often was and still is directed outward toward 
distant lands. Now a significant number of our troops are engaged in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. We have kept troops in Korea for over 50 years, 
and thousands of troops remain in Europe and in over 130 other 
countries. This twisted philosophy of ignoring our national borders 
while pursuing an empire created a situation where Seoul, Korea, was 
better protected than Washington, D.C., on 9/11. These priorities must 
change, but I am certain the 9/11 Commission will not address this 
issue. This misdirected policy has prompted the current protracted war 
in Iraq, which has gone on now for 13 years with no end in sight.
  The al Qaeda attacks should not be used to justify more intervention. 
Instead they should be seen as a guerilla attacks against us for what 
the Arabs and the Muslim world see as our invasion and interference in 
their homeland. This cycle of escalation is rapidly spreading the 
confrontation worldwide between the Christian West and the Muslim East. 
With each escalation the world becomes more dangerous. It is especially 
made worse when we retaliate against Muslims and Arabs who had nothing 
to do with 9/11, as we have in Iraq, further confirming the suspicions 
of the Muslim masses that our goals are more about oil and occupation 
than they are about punishing those responsible for 9/11.
  Those who claim that Iraq is another Vietnam are wrong. They cannot 
be the same. There are too many differences in time, place and 
circumstance. But that does not mean the Iraqi conflict cannot last 
longer, spread throughout the region and possibly throughout the world, 
making it potentially much worse than what we suffered in Vietnam.
  In the first 6 years we were in Vietnam, we lost less than 500 
troops. Over 700 of our troops have been killed in Iraq in just over a 
year. Our neglect at pursuing the al Qaeda and bin Laden in Pakistan 
and Afghanistan and diverting resources to Iraq have seriously 
compromised our ability to maintain a favorable world opinion of 
support and cooperation in this effort. Instead, we have chaos in Iraq 
while the Islamists are being financed by a booming drug business from 
U.S-occupied Afghanistan.
  Continuing to deny that the setbacks against us are related to our 
overall foreign policy of foreign meddling throughout many years and 
many administrations makes a victory over our enemies nearly 
impossible. Not understanding the true nature and motivation of those 
who have and will commit deadly attacks against us prevents a sensible 
policy from being pursued.

                              {time}  1845

  Guerrilla warriors who are willing to risk and sacrifice their all as 
part of a war that they see as defensive are a far cry philosophically 
from a band of renegades who, out of unprovoked hate, seek to destroy 
us and kill themselves in the process. How we fight back depends on 
understanding these differences.
  Of course, changing our foreign policy to one of no preemptive war, 
no nation-building, no entangling alliances, no interference in the 
internal affairs of other nations, and trade and friendship with all 
those who seek it, is no easy task. The real obstacle, though, is to 
understand the motives behind our current foreign policy of perpetual 
meddling in the affairs of others for more than 100 years. 
Understanding why both political parties agree on the principles of 
continuous foreign intervention is crucial. Those reasons are multiple 
and varied.
  They range from the persistent Wilsonian idealism of making the world 
safe for democracy to the belief that we must protect our oil. Also 
contributing to this bipartisan foreign policy view is the notion that 
promoting world government is worthwhile. This involves support for the 
United Nations, NATO, control of the world's resources through the IMF, 
the World Bank, the WTO, NAFTA, FTAA and the Law of the Sea Treaty, all 
of which gained the support of those sympathetic to the poor and 
socialism, while too often the benefits accrue to the well-connected 
international corporations and bankers sympathetic to economic fascism.
  Sadly, in the process, the people are forgotten, especially those who 
pay the taxes; those who lives are lost and sacrificed in no-win, 
undeclared wars; and the unemployed and the poor who lose out as the 
economic consequences of financing our foreign entanglements evolve.
  Regardless of one's enthusiasm or lack thereof for the war and the 
general policy of maintaining American troops in more than 130 
countries, one cold fact must be soon recognized by all of us here in 
the Congress. The American people cannot afford it; and when the market 
finally recognizes the overcommitment we have made, the results will 
not be pleasing to anyone.
  A guns-and-butter policy was flawed in the 1960s and gave us interest 
rates of 21 percent in the 1970s with high inflation rates. The current 
guns-and-butter policy is even more massive, and our economic 
infrastructure is more fragile than it was back then. These facts will 
dictate our inability to continue this policy both internationally and 
domestically.
  It is true, an unshakable resolve to stay the course in Iraq or any 
other hot spot can be pursued for many years; but when a country is 
adding to its future indebtedness by over $700 billion per year, it can 
only be done with great economic sacrifice to all our citizens.
  Huge deficits financed by borrowing and Federal Reserve monetization 
are an unsustainable policy and always lead to higher price inflation, 
higher interest rates, a continued erosion of the dollar's value, and a 
faltering economy. Economic law dictates that the standard of living 
then must go down for all Americans, except for the privileged few who 
have an inside track on government largess if this policy of profligate 
spending continues.
  Unfortunately, the American people, especially the younger 
generation, will have to decide whether to languish with the current 
policy or reject the notion that perpetual warfare and continued growth 
in entitlements should be pursued indefinitely. I am sure the 
commission will not deal with the flaw in the foreign policy endorsed 
by both parties for these many, many years.
  I hope the commission tells us, though, why members of the bin Laden 
family were permitted immediately after 9/11 to leave the United States 
without interrogation when no other commercial or private flights were 
allowed. That event should have been thoroughly studied and explained 
to the American people. We actually had a lot more reason to invade 
Saudi Arabia than we did Iraq in connection with 9/11; but that 
country, obviously no friend of democracy, remains an unchallenged ally 
of the United States with few questions asked.
  I am afraid the commission will answer only a few questions while 
raising many new ones. Overall, though, the commission has been 
beneficial and provides some reassurance to those who believe we 
operate in a much too closed-off society. Fortunately, any 
administration under the current system still must respond to 
reasonable inquiries.

                          ____________________