[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 14, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4478-H4483]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          HIDDEN COSTS OF WAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this evening, I would like to address the 
subject of the hidden cost of war. The cost of war is always more than 
anticipated. If all the costs were known prior to beginning a war, 
fewer wars would be fought. At the beginning, optimism prevails; denial 
and deception override the concern for the pain and penalties yet to 
come. Jingoistic patriotism and misplaced militarism too easily silence 
those who are cautious about the unforeseen expenses and hardships 
brought on by war. Conveniently forgotten are the goals never achieved 
by armed conflict and the negative consequences that linger for years. 
Even some who recognize that the coming war will be costly easily 
rationalize that the cost will be worth it. Others claim it is unmanly 
or weak to pursue a negotiated settlement of a political dispute which 
helps drive the march toward armed conflict.
  It has been argued by proponents of modern technological warfare in 
recent decades that sophisticated weapons greatly reduce the human cost 
by using a smaller number of troops equipped with smart weapons that 
minimize battle deaths and collateral damage. This belief has led some 
to be more willing to enter an armed conflict. The challenge will be 
deciding whether or not modern weapons actually make war more 
acceptable and less costly.
  So far, the use of sanctions, the misjudgments of resistance to 
occupation, and unintended consequences reveal that fancy weapons do 
not guarantee fancy and painless outcomes. Some old-fashioned rules 
relating to armed conflicts cannot be easily repealed despite the 
optimism of the shock-and-awe crowd.
  It seems that primitive explosive weapons can compete quite 
effectively with modern technology when the determination exists and 
guerilla tactics are used. The promised efficiency and the reduced 
casualties cannot yet be estimated.
  Costs are measured differently depending on whether or not a war is 
defensive or offensive in nature. Costs in each situation may be 
similar, but are tolerated quite differently. The determination of 
those defending their homeland frequently is underestimated, making it 
difficult to calculate cost.

                              {time}  1815

  Consider how long the Vietnamese fought and suffered before routing 
all foreign armies. For 85 years the Iraqis steadfastly have resisted 
all foreign occupation, and even their previous history indicates that 
meddling by Western and Christian outsiders in their country would not 
be tolerated.
  Those who fight a defensive war see the costs of the conflict 
differently. Defenders have the goal of surviving and preserving their 
homeland, religious culture and their way of life, despite the 
shortcomings of their prior leaders. Foreigners are seen as a threat. 
This willingness to defend to the last is especially strong if the 
entity they fight for affords more stability than a war-torn country.
  Hardships can be justified in a defensive war, and uses of resources 
is more easily justified than in an unpopular, far-away conflict. 
Motivations are stronger, especially when the cause seems to be truly 
just and the people are willing to sacrifice for the common goal of 
survival.
  Defensive war provides a higher moral goal, and this idealism exceeds 
material concerns. In all wars, however, there are profiteers and 
special interests looking after their own selfish interests. Truly 
defensive wars never need a draft to recruit troops to fight. Large 
numbers voluntarily join to face the foreign threat. In a truly 
defensive war, huge costs in terms of money, lives and property are 
endured because so much is at stake; total loss of one's country the 
alternative.
  The freer a country is, where the love of liberty is alive and well, 
the greater the resistance. A free society provides greater economic 
means to fight than a tyrannical society. For this reason, truly free 
societies are less likely to be attacked by tyrants, but societies that 
do not enjoy maximum freedom and economic prosperity still pool 
together to resist invaders.
  A spirit of nationalism brings people together when attacked, as do 
extreme religious beliefs. The cause of liberty or divine emperor or 
radical Islam can inspire those willing to fight to the death to stop a 
foreign occupation. These motivations make the costs and risks 
necessary and justifiable, where a less popular offensive war will not 
be tolerated for long.
  Idealism inspires a strong defense. Cynicism eventually curtails 
offensive wars. The costs of offensive war over time is viewed quite 
differently by the people who must pay. Offensive wars include those 
that are initiated by one country to seek some advantage over another 
without provocation. This includes needless intervention in the 
internal affairs of others and efforts at nation-building, even when 
well-intentioned.
  Offensive war never achieves the high moral ground, in spite of 
proclamations made by the initiators of the hostilities. Offensive wars 
eventually fail, but, tragically, only after much pain and suffering. 
The cost is great and not well accepted by the people who suffer and 
have nothing to gain. The early calls for patriotism and false claims 
generate initial support, but the people eventually tire.
  At the beginning of an offensive war, the people are supportive 
because of the justifications given by the government authorities who 
want the war for ulterior reasons, but the demands to sacrifice liberty 
at home to promote freedom and democracy abroad ring hollow after the 
costs and policy shortcomings become evident.
  Initially, the positive propaganda easily overwhelms the pain of the 
small number who must fight and suffer injury. Offensive wars are 
fought without as much determination as defensive wars. They tend to be 
less efficient and more political, causing them to linger and drift 
into stalemate or worse.
  In almost all wars, governments use deception about the enemy that 
needs to be vanquished to gain the support of the people. In our recent 
history, just since 1941, our government has entirely ignored the 
requirement that war be fought only after a formal congressional 
declaration, further setting the stage for disenchantment once the war 
progresses poorly.
  Respect for the truth is easily sacrificed in order to rally the 
people for the war effort. Professional propagandists, by a coalition 
of the media and the coalition officials, beat the war drums. The 
people follow out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic and weak in the 
defense of our Nation, even when there is no national security threat 
at all.
  Joining in support for the war are the special interest groups that 
have other agenda to pursue: profits, religious beliefs and partisan 
political obligations. Ideologues use war to pursue personal ambitions 
unrelated to national defense and convert the hesitant with promises of 
spreading democracy, freedom and prosperity. The tools they use are 
unrestrained state power to force their ideals on others, no matter how 
unjust it seems to the unfortunate recipients of the preemptive war.
  For some, the more chaos, the greater the opportunity to jump in and 
remake a country or an entire region. At times in history, the opening 
salvo has been deliberately carried out by the ones anxious to get the 
war under way, while blaming the opposition for the incident. The 
deceptions must stir passion for the war through an appeal to 
patriotism, nationalism, machismo and jingoistic manliness of proving 
one's self in great feats of battle.
  This early support before the first costs are felt is easily 
achieved. Since

[[Page H4479]]

total victory may not come quickly, however, support by the people is 
gradually lost. When the war is questioned, the ill-conceived 
justifications for getting involved are reexamined and found to have 
been distorted. Frequently the people discover they were lied to so 
that politicians could gain support for a war that had nothing to do 
with national security.
  These discoveries and the disenchantments come first to those 
directly exposed to danger in the front lines where soldiers die or 
lose their limbs. Military families and friends bear the burden of 
grief, while the majority of the citizens still hope the war will end 
or never affect them directly in any way.
  But as the casualties grow, the message of suffering spreads, and the 
questions remain unanswered concerning the real reason an offensive war 
was necessary in the first place. Just when the human tragedy becomes 
evident to a majority of the citizens, other costs become noticeable: 
Taxes are raised, deficits explode, inflation raises its ugly head, and 
the standard of living for the average citizen is threatened. The funds 
for the war, even if immediate taxes are not levied, must come from the 
domestic economy, and everyone suffers. The economic consequences of 
the Vietnam War were felt throughout the 1970s and even into the early 
1980s.
  As the problems mount, the falsehood and distortions on which the war 
was based become less believable and collectively resented, the 
government and the politicians who pursued the policy lose credibility. 
The tragedy, however, is that once the majority discovers the truth, 
much more time is needed to change the course of events. This is the 
sad part.
  Political leaders who needlessly dragged us into the war cannot and 
will not admit an error in judgment. In fact, they do the opposite to 
prove they were right all along. Instead of winding down, the war gets 
a boost to prove the policy was correct and bring the war to a 
victorious conclusion. This only motivates the resistance of those 
fighting the defensive side of the war. More money and more troops must 
be sacrificed before the policy changes.

  Using surrogate foreign troops may seem to cut domestic troop losses 
in the country starting the war, but will only prolong the agony, 
suffering and the costs and the increase in the need for even more 
troops. Withdrawing financial support for the effort is seen as being 
even more unpatriotic than not having supported the war in the first 
place.
  Support for the troops becomes evident to supporting the flawed 
policy that led to the mess. No matter how unwise the policy and how 
inevitable the results, changing course becomes almost impossible for 
those individuals who promoted the war. This fear of being labeled 
unpatriotic and not supportive of the troops on the battlefield 
ironically drives a policy that is more harmful to the troops and 
costly to the folks at home.
  Sometimes it requires a new group of politicians, removed from the 
original decision-makers who initiated the war to bring about a policy 
shift. Johnson could not do it in Vietnam, and Nixon did it slowly, 
awkwardly and not without first expanding the war before agreeing 
enough was enough.
  With the seemingly inevitable delays in altering policy, the results 
are quite predictable. Costs escalate, and the division between the 
supporters and nonsupporters widens. This adds to economic problems, 
while further eroding domestic freedoms, as with all wars.
  On occasion, as we have seen in our own country, dissent invites 
harsh social and legal repercussions. Those who speak out in opposition 
will not only be ostracized, but may feel the full force of the law 
coming down on them. Errors in foreign affairs leading to war are hard 
to reverse, but even if deliberate action does not change the course of 
events, flawed policies eventually will fail as economic laws will 
assert themselves.
  The more people have faith in and depend upon the state, the more 
difficult it is to keep the state from initiating wars. If the state is 
seen as primarily responsible for providing personal and economic 
security, obedience and dependency becomes a pervasive problem. If the 
state is limited to protecting liberty and encourages self-reliance and 
personal responsibility, there is a much better chance for limiting 
pro-war attitudes. The great danger of war, especially unnecessary war, 
is that it breeds more dependency while threatening liberty, always 
allowing the state to grow regardless of existing attitudes before the 
war.
  War unfortunately allows the enemies of liberty to justify the 
sacrifice of personal freedoms, and the people all too often carelessly 
sacrifice precisely what they are supposed to be fighting for: freedom. 
Our revolution was a rare exception. It was one war where the people 
ended up with more freedom, not less.
  Almost every war has an economic component, some more odious than 
others. Our own Civil War dealt with slavery. The tariffs and economic 
oppression by the North were also major factors. Remember, only a small 
number of Southern soldiers personally owned slaves; yet, they were 
enthusiastic in their opposition to the Northern invasion.
  The battles fought in the Middle East since World War I have had a 
lot to do with securing Arab oil fields for the benefit of Western 
nations. Not only are wars fought for economic reasons, wars have 
profound economic consequences for the countries involved, even if one 
side is spared massive property damage.
  The economic consequences of war play a major role in bringing 
hostilities to an end. The consequences are less tolerated by the 
citizens of countries whose leaders drag them into offensive and 
unnecessary wars. The determination to fight on cannot compete with 
those who see their homeland threatened by foreign invaders.
  There is essentially no one, not even among the neoconservative 
crowd, claiming that the Iraqi war is defensive in nature for America. 
Early on, this was an attempt to do so, and it was successful to a 
large degree in convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein had 
weapons of mass destruction and was connected to al Qaeda.
  Now the justification for the war is completely different and far 
less impressive. If the current justification had been used to rally 
the American people and Congress from the beginning, the war would have 
been rejected. The fact that we are bogged down in an offensive war 
makes it quite difficult to extricate ourselves from the mess. Without 
the enthusiasm that a defensive war generates, prolonging the Iraq War 
will play havoc with our economy.
  The insult of paying for the war, in addition to the fact that the 
war was not truly necessary, makes the hardship less tolerable. This 
leads to domestic turmoil as proponents become more vocal in demanding 
patriotic support and opponents become angrier for the burden they must 
bear.

                              {time}  1830

  So far, the American people have not yet felt the true burden of the 
cost of this war. Even with over 1,700 deaths and 13,000 wounded, only 
a small percentage of Americans have suffered directly. But their pain 
and suffering is growing and more noticeable every day. Taxes have not 
been raised to pay the bills for the current war, so annual deficits 
and national debt continues to grow. This helps delay the pain of 
paying the bills, but the consequences of this process are starting to 
be felt.
  Direct tax increases, a more honest way to finance a foreign 
interventionism, would serve to restrain those who so cavalierly take 
us to war. The borrowing authority of governments permit wars to be 
started and prolonged which otherwise would be resisted if the true 
cost were known to the people from the beginning.
  Americans have an especially unique ability to finance our war 
efforts while minimizing the immediate effect. As the issuer of the 
world's reserve currency, we are able to finance our extravagance 
through inflating our dollars. We have the special privilege of 
printing that which the world accepts as money in lieu of gold. This is 
an invitation to economic disaster, permitting an ill-founded foreign 
policy that sets the stage for problems for years to come. A system of 
money that politicians and central bankers could not manipulate would 
restrain those with grandiose ideas of empire.
  The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, and shortly thereafter the 
Fed accommodated the Wilsonians bent on

[[Page H4480]]

entering World War I by inflating and deficit-financing that ill-
begotten involvement. Though it produced the 1921 depression and many 
other problems since, the process subsequently has become 
institutionalized in financing our militarism in the 20th century and 
already in the 21st.
  Without the Fed's ability to create money out of thin air, our 
government would be severely handicapped in waging wars that do not 
serve our interests. The money issue and the ability of our government 
to wage war are intricately related. Anyone interested in curtailing 
war-time spending and our militarism abroad is obligated to study the 
monetary system through which our government seductively and 
surreptitiously finances foreign adventurism without the responsibility 
of informing the public of its cost or collecting the revenues required 
to finance the effort.
  Being the issuer of the world's premier currency allows a lot more 
abuse than a country would have otherwise. World businesses, 
governments, and central banks accept our dollars as if they are as 
good as gold. This is a remnant of a time when the dollar was as good 
as gold. This is no longer the case. The trust is still there, but it 
is misplaced. Since the dollar is simply a paper currency without real 
value, someday confidence will be lost and our goose will no longer be 
able to lay the golden egg. That is when reality will set in and the 
real cost of our extravagance, both domestic and foreign, will be felt 
by all Americans.
  We will no longer be able to finance our war machine through willing 
foreigners, who now gladly take our newly printed dollars for their 
newly produced goods, then loan them back to us at below-market rates 
to support our standard of living and our war effort. The payment by 
American citizens will come as the dollar loses value, interest rates 
rise, and prices increase. The higher prices become the tax that a more 
honest government would have levied directly to pay for the war effort.
  An unpopular war, especially, needs this deception as a method of 
payment, hiding the true costs which are dispersed and delayed through 
this neat little monetary trick. The real tragedy is that this 
inflation tax is not evenly distributed among all the people, and more 
than not is borne disproportionately by the poor and the middle class 
as a truly regressive tax in the worst sense.
  Politicians in Washington do not see inflation as an unfair seductive 
tax. Our monetary policy, unfortunately, is never challenged, even by 
the proponents of low taxes who care so little about deficits. But 
eventually it all comes to an end because economic law overrides the 
politicians' deceit.
  Already we are seeing signs on the horizon that this free ride for us 
is coming to an end. Price inflation is alive and well and much worse 
than government statistics show. The sluggish economy suggests that the 
super stimulation of easy credit over the last decades is no longer 
sufficient to keep the economy strong. Our personal consumption and 
government spending are dependent on borrowing from foreign lenders. 
Artificially high standards of living can mask the debt accumulation 
that it requires while needed savings remain essentially nil.
  The ability to print the reserve currency of the world, and the 
willingness of foreigners to take it, causes gross distortions in our 
current account deficits and total foreign indebtedness. It plays a 
major role in the erosion of our manufacturing base and causes the 
exporting of our jobs along with our dollars. Bashing foreigners, and 
particularly the Chinese and the Japanese, as the cause of our 
dwindling manufacturing and job base is misplaced. It prevents the 
evaluation of our own policies, policies that undermine and increase 
the price of our own manufacturing goods while distorting the trade 
balance.
  Though we continue to benefit from the current circumstances through 
cheap imports on borrowed money, the shaky fundamentals make our 
economy and financial system vulnerable to sudden and severe 
adjustments. Foreigners will not finance our excessive standard of 
living and our expensive war overseas indefinitely. It will end. What 
we do in the meantime to prepare for that day will make all the 
difference in the world for the future of freedom in this country. It 
is the future of freedom in this country that is truly the legitimate 
responsibility of us as Members of Congress.
  Centuries ago, the notion of money introduced the world to trade and 
the principle of division of labor, ushering in for the first time a 
level of economic existence above mere subsistence. Modern fiat money, 
with electronic transactions, has given an additional boost to that 
prosperity. But unlike sound commodity money, fiat money, with easy 
credit and artificially low interest rates, causes distortions and 
malinvestments that require corrections.
  The modernization of electronic global transfers, which with sound 
money would be beneficial, has allowed for greater distortions and debt 
to be accumulated, setting the stage for a much more serious period of 
adjustment, requiring an economic downturn, liquidation of debt, and 
reallocation of resources that must eventually come from savings rather 
than a central bank printing press.
  These economic laws will limit our ability to pursue our foreign 
intervention no matter how well intentioned and successful they may 
seem. The Soviet system collapsed on its own weakness. I fear an 
economic collapse here at home much more than an attack by a foreign 
country.
  Above all, the greatest concern should be for the systematic 
undermining of our personal liberties since 9/11, which will worsen 
with an ongoing foreign war and the severe economic problems that are 
coming. Since we are not fighting the war to defend our homeland, and 
we abuse so many of our professed principles, we face great 
difficulties in resolving the growing predicament in which we find 
ourselves.

  Our options are few, and admitting errors in judgment is not likely 
to occur. Moral forces are against us as we find ourselves imposing our 
will on a people 6,000 miles from our shore. How would the American 
people respond if a foreign country, with people of a different color, 
religion, and language, imposed itself on us to make us conform to 
their notions of justice and goodness? None of us would sit idly by. 
This is why those who see themselves as defenders of their homeland and 
their way of life have the upper hand regardless of the shock-and-awe 
military power available to us.
  At this point, our power works perversely. The stronger and more 
violent we are, the greater the resistance becomes. The conservatives 
who took us to war under false pretenses either did not know or did not 
care about the history and traditions of the Iraqi people. Surely they 
must have heard of an Islamic defensive jihad that is easy to promote 
when one's country is being attacked by foreign forces.
  Family members have religious obligations to avenge all killing by 
foreign forces, which explains why killing insurgents only causes their 
numbers to multiply. This family obligation to seek revenge is closely 
tied to achieving instant eternal martyrdom through vengeful suicide 
attacks. Parents of martyrs do not weep, as the parents of our soldiers 
do. They believe the suicide bombers in their families are glorified. 
These religious beliefs cannot simply be changed during the war.
  The only thing we can do is remove the incentives we give to the 
religious leaders of the jihad by leaving them alone. Without our 
presence in the Middle East, whether on the Arabian Peninsula or in 
Iraq, the rallying cry for suicidal jihadists would ring hollow. Was 
there any fear of our national security from a domestic terrorist 
attack by Islamists before we put a base in Saudi Arabia?
  Our freedoms here at home have served the interests of those who are 
hell bent on pursuing an American empire, though this, too, will be 
limited by economic costs and the undermining of our personal 
liberties. A free society produces more wealth for more people than any 
other. That wealth, for many years, can be confiscated to pay for the 
militarism advocated by those who promote preemptive war.
  But militarism and its costs undermine the very market system that 
provided the necessary resources in the first place. As this happens, 
productivity and wealth are diminished, putting pressure on the 
authority to ruthlessly extract even more funds from

[[Page H4481]]

the people. For what they cannot collect through taxes, they take 
through currency inflation, eventually leading to an inability to 
finance unnecessary and questionable warfare and bringing the process 
to an end.
  It happened to the Soviets, and their military machine collapsed. 
Hitler destroyed Germany's economy, but he financed his aggression for 
several years by immediately stealing the gold reserves of every 
country he occupied. That too was self-limited, and he met his military 
defeat.
  For us, it is less difficult, since we can confiscate the wealth of 
American citizens and the savers of the world merely by printing more 
dollars to support our militarism. Though different in detail, we too 
must face the prospect that this system of financing is seriously 
flawed and our expensive policy of worldwide interventionism will 
collapse. Only a profound change in attitudes regarding our foreign 
policy, our fiscal policy, and our monetary policy will save us from 
ourselves.
  If we did make these changes, we would not need to become 
isolationists, despite what many claim. Isolationism is not the only 
alternative to intervention in other nations' affairs. Freedom works. 
Free markets supported by sound money, private properties, and respect 
for all voluntary contracts can set an example for the world, since the 
resulting prosperity would be significant and distributed more widely 
than any socialist system.
  Instead of using force to make others do it our way, our influence 
could be through the example we set that would motivate others to 
emulate us. Trade, travel, and exchange of ideas and friendly 
relationships, with all those who seek friendship, are a far cry from a 
protectionist closed-border Nation that would serve no one's interest. 
This type of society would be greatly enhanced with a worldwide 
commodity standard of money. This would prevent the imbalances that are 
a great burden to today's economy. Our current account deficits and 
total foreign indebtedness would not occur under an honest, 
nonpolitical commodity money. Competitive devaluations and abnormally 
fixed exchange rates would not be possible as tools of protectionism.
  We can be certain that the distortions in the trade balance and the 
WTO trade wars that are multiplying will eventually lead to a serious 
challenge to worldwide trade. The tragedy of trade wars is that they 
frequently lead to military wars between nations. And until the wealth 
is consumed and the young men are no longer available to fight and die, 
the process will cost plenty.
  We must not forget that real peace and prosperity are available to 
us. America has a grand tradition in this regard, despite her 
shortcomings. It is just that in the recent decades the excessive 
unearned wealth available to us to run our welfare warfare state has 
distracted us from our important traditions: honoring liberty and 
emphasizing self-reliance and responsibility. Up until the 20th 
century, we were much less eager to go around the world searching for 
dragons to slay. That tradition is a good one and one that we must 
reconsider before the ideal of personal liberty is completely 
destroyed.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PAUL. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I have come here tonight, first of all, to 
commend the gentleman from Texas for these remarks and for his 
leadership role that he has taken in this regard. I also want to 
commend our colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), 
because he feels so badly that he voted for this war and now he has 
seen what has happened. And certainly the most unfortunate thing has 
been the more than 1,700 young Americans who have been killed there 
now, and the some 12,000 who have been wounded, many of them severely 
wounded, maimed for life, in what was a totally unnecessary war.
  I told people before this war started that there was nothing 
conservative about this war; that it was going to mean massive foreign 
aid, which conservatives have traditionally been against; that it was 
going to mean huge deficit spending, which conservatives have 
traditionally been against.
  Lawrence Lindsey, who was the President's leading economic adviser, 
said before the war started that it would cost $100 billion to $200 
billion. Now, by the end of this fiscal year, we are going to be at the 
astounding figure of $300 billion. And I think the only reason more 
people are not upset about that is that it is humanly impossible to 
truly comprehend a figure as high as $300 billion.

                              {time}  1845

  Of course Lawrence Lindsey lost his job over that. A few days before 
we voted on this war back in October of 2002, I was called to the White 
House with five other Members and was given a briefing by Condoleezza 
Rice; George Tenet, then head of the CIA; and John McLaughlin, the 
Deputy Director. I asked about the Lindsey prediction and was told by 
Ms. Rice, oh, no, the war would not cost near as much.
  I asked them if you could get by the traditional conservative view 
against massive foreign aid and get by the traditional conservative 
position of being against huge deficit spending, and if you could get 
past the traditional conservative view that the U.S. should not be the 
policeman of the world, was there any evidence of any imminent threat?
  I was told there was no evidence of any imminent threat, and that was 
later confirmed the day after Mr. Tenet resigned. He gave a speech at 
Georgetown and he said he told everyone all along there was no evidence 
of any imminent threat by Saddam Hussein, who was truly an evil man. I 
asked at that time meeting at the White House how much Saddam Hussein's 
total military budget was in regard to ours, in relation to ours, and I 
was told it was a little over 2/10 of 1 percent of ours.
  It just amazed me that we would be considering such a drastic action, 
and what really impressed me later on, I read in Bob Woodward's book, 
and the briefing I had was in October 2002. Some 2.5 months later on 
December 21, the President received that same briefing from Mr. Tenet 
and Mr. McLaughlin and probably received more information than I did. 
According to Mr. Woodward, the President's comment was, Is that the 
best we have? That will never convince Joe Public. And yet we went on 
to this unnecessary war anyway.
  One thing that disturbed me about this also, not as much as the 
deaths and the woundings, but many people, I think, mistakenly thought 
this was a conservative war. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and I 
are two of the most conservative Members of this House, as is the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), another one of our colleagues who voted 
against the war.
  Charlie Reese, a nationally syndicated conservative columnist, who 
was chosen several years ago as the favorite columnist of C-SPAN 
viewers, said before the war that it is ludicrous to think that a Third 
World country like Iraq is a threat to the United States.
  He went on to write, ``A U.S. attack on Iraq is a prescription for 
the decline and fall of the American empire. Overextension, urged on by 
a bunch of rabid intellectuals who wouldn't know one end of a gun from 
another, has doomed many an empire. Just let the United States try to 
occupy the Middle East, which will be the practical result of a war 
against Iraq, and Americans will be bled dry by the cost in both blood 
and treasury.''
  James Webb, President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy and a Vietnam 
veteran, wrote a column in the Washington Post strongly opposing this 
war before it started. He said if we went in, we would be there 
probably for 30 years.
  A professor of international affairs at Sarah Lawrence College wrote 
in the Washington Post before the war started, ``Initially, a military 
liberation of Baghdad could unleash joy in the streets of Iraq. But 
unless the United States is willing to forcefully police the new order 
for many years to come, Iraq will fracture and descend into chaos, 
destabilizing its neighbors and giving rise to new jihad groups that 
will attack Americans. Not only will there be no democracy in Iraq, but 
U.S. vital interests will be in danger.''
  The gentleman mentioned the word ``isolationist'' a few minutes ago. 
Anyone who opposes any foreign adventure or misadventure is sometimes 
referred

[[Page H4482]]

to as an isolationist. But our policies and actions in Iraq have 
isolated us almost more than anything else we have done from the rest 
of the world.
  I have traveled in many foreign countries, and in almost every 
country I have been told 75 to 80 percent of the people have been 
against the war. Dick Armey, the Republican majority leader at the time 
we voted on the war, said before the war started, ``I do not believe 
that America will justifiably make an unprovoked attack on another 
nation. It would not be consistent with what we have been as a Nation. 
My own view would be to let him bluster, let him rant and rave all he 
wants, and let that be a matter between he and his own country. As long 
as he stays within his own borders, we should not be addressing any 
attack or resources against him.''
  Jack Kemp wrote before the war, ``If there is a lack of sufficient 
hard evidence that Saddam Hussein has his finger on the trigger of a 
weapon of mass destruction or is at least taking active steps to use 
one in the near future, are we prepared to assert the moral and legal 
authority to invade and conquer Iraq preemptively because we fear 
Saddam might use a weapon of mass destruction against us if he were 
able to acquire one? Would the same apply, say, to Pakistan or Iran if 
we fear the current regimes might fall and Taliban-like regimes take 
their place? What is the evidence that should cause us to fear Iraq 
more than Pakistan or Iran in this regard? Do we reserve the right to 
launch a preemptive war exclusively for ourselves, or might other 
nations such as India, Pakistan or China be justified in taking similar 
action on the basis of the fears of other nations? Based on the hard 
evidence I have seen, I do not believe the administration has made a 
compelling case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.''
  Georgie Ann Geyer, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote after the 
war started, ``Critics of the war against Iraq have said since the 
beginning of the conflict that Americans, still strangely complacent 
about overseas wars being waged by a minority in their name, will 
inevitably come to a point where they will see they have to have a 
government that provides services at home or one that seeks empire 
across the globe.'' That seems to be what we are doing in this 
situation.
  President Kennedy said in 1961, ``We must face the fact that the 
United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, that we are only 6 
percent of the world's population,'' now 4 percent, ``that we cannot 
impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind, that we cannot 
right every wrong or reverse every adversity, and therefore, there 
cannot be an American solution to every world problem.''

  I can also tell Members that last year Robert Novak wrote a column 
and said Republicans all over the country are ``distraught about the 
U.S. adventure in Iraq.'' He quoted from a speech by Senator Roberts, 
who said, ``We need to restrain our growing messianic instincts, a sort 
of global social engineering, where the United States feels it is both 
entitled and obligated to promote democracy, by force, if necessary.''
  And of course we know, too, a few days ago that the godfather of 
conservativism William Buckley came out and said it is time to exit 
Iraq. A few months before he said if he had known in 2002 what he knows 
now, he would have opposed the war from the beginning.
  It has not been a conservative war from the start. It was totally 
unfair and unconservative to put the total burden of enforcing U.N. 
resolutions on our taxpayers and our military. Conservatives have 
traditionally been the biggest critics of the U.N.
  I get back to the word ``isolationists,'' and say we should try to be 
friends with every nation. I think most of us support helping out 
during humanitarian crises. We should have trade and cultural and 
educational exchanges, but we should never go to war except as a very 
last resort.
  Another great, great conservative from many years ago, Senator Robert 
Taft, wrote, ``No foreign policy can be justified except as a policy 
devoted to the protection of the liberty of the American people with 
war only as the last resort and only to preserve that liberty.'' That 
is the true conservative position. The true conservative position is to 
put our own country and our own people first, and we are not doing 
that.
  Most of what we have done in Iraq has been massive foreign aid. We 
have built or rebuilt over 6,000 schools. We have been rebuilding 
roads, water systems, power plants. We have set up a witness protection 
program, small business loan program, and even Internet cafes. I know 
that the soldiers over there are proud of these good things that they 
have done, but at a time when the Congress, and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul) and I do not vote to raise the national debt, but the 
Congress voted recently to raise our national debt to $9 trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not going to be many years ago, they talk about 
2046, but it is going to be much sooner when we are not going to be 
able to pay all of our Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Every 
article says Medicare and Medicaid are in worse shape than Social 
Security. We have guaranteed 44 private pensions through an agency 
called the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. We have added on a 
trillion-dollar prescription drug benefit. There is nobody up here that 
I have talked to on either side of the aisle who says we are going to 
be able to pay all of these obligations in the near future.
  So what will we do, first we will start printing more money, but that 
does not work for very long. It is like a ball rolling downhill; it 
gets faster as it goes along, and then they are going to have to cut 
benefits. At the most we have 12 or 15 more years probably, and that is 
at the most.
  A few days ago the pensioners of United Airlines woke up, and their 
pensions had been cut in half. It will not happen that drastically with 
the government, but that is the kind of future we are facing if we try 
to take on the obligations of the entire world.
  We went into Iraq, and I can tell Members this: In 1998, I voted to 
give the Iraqi opposition $100 million to start the movement to take 
out Saddam Hussein. I was convinced that we should have let them fight 
their own war instead of sending our kids over there to fight and die. 
I think what we should do now, we should start, and I wish the 
President would announce a phased and orderly withdrawal. I think he 
could do this in a very positive way. He could say we have done far 
more for Iraq than any other nation has done for another in the history 
of the world. He could point to the $300 billion we have spent there, 
and he also could refer to the polls showing almost all Iraqis view us 
as occupiers rather than liberators. Last year in the last poll that 
the government took, it was 92 percent, and 78 percent in a poll taken 
by CNN, that the Iraqis view us as occupiers rather than liberators. 
They do not really appreciate what we have done. They do want our 
money. This is a country that Newsweek said had a gross domestic 
product of $65 billion before the war, and we have spent $300 billion 
in just a couple of years' time.
  As I said earlier, some may say this is isolationist, but the truth 
is the war in Iraq has isolated us from almost everyone except a few 
foreign policy elitists around the world. When they use thoughtless 
cliches like we cannot cut and run, or we must stay the course, we 
should ask, why? Is what we are accomplishing or not accomplishing in 
Iraq worth one more young American being killed? Would it be worth the 
life of your son and daughter, I would say to anyone who happens to be 
listening to this?
  Last June about this time I read in the Chicago Tribune a story about 
a young soldier who had just been killed in Iraq. Just a few days 
earlier he had called his mother and told her, this is not our war. We 
should not be here. I can tell Members this: We changed the name of the 
War Department many years ago to the Department of Defense. We should 
make it truly a Defense Department once again and bring our troops 
home.
  I can tell Members very few people in this Congress, I do not think 
anybody in the Congress, really respects and admires the military more 
than I do, but I believe in national defense. I do not believe in 
international defense, and if we take on the defense obligations of the 
entire world, and that is another thing, conservatives have never 
believed in world government. This is not a conservative war. We should 
begin a phased, orderly withdrawal and stop

[[Page H4483]]

the killing over there. It is such a sad thing, and it is just not 
worth what we are going through.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) for getting 
this time tonight and all of his comments.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan) for participating, and thank him for his leadership, his votes 
and his energy that he puts in in trying to keep this Congress straight 
and the budget straight.
  I think the points the gentleman made about the issue of whether the 
conservative position is for the war or against the war is, I think, 
very appropriate, because too often it is assumed if there is a war 
going on, the conservative position is you have to promote that war.

                              {time}  1900

  As a matter of fact, sometimes I like to think of the term, which is 
conservative, and that is belief in the Constitution, which is a very 
conservative view. I believe if we adhered more strictly to the 
Constitution, we would probably be involved much less so in these kinds 
of wars.
  During the time when this resolution came up, I am on the Committee 
on International Relations, I offered an amendment to declare war, not 
that I supported the war nor would I vote for the amendment, but to 
make the point that if this country, this Congress wants to go to war, 
they ought to be up front with it and make a declaration of war, decide 
what we have to do and go and win it. But not one single person voted 
to declare war. As a matter of fact, it was turned back to me and said, 
why would I think of bringing up such a frivolous notion about the 
Constitution and declaration of war? Another Member said, That part of 
the Constitution is anachronistic. We don't look at that anymore.
  Mr. DUNCAN. If the gentleman will yield, just one brief comment. 
Probably, unfortunately, one of the weakest arguments up here against 
any legislation is that it is unconstitutional, but it should be the 
strongest argument.
  Mr. PAUL. If we do not use that argument, what good is our oath of 
office? What good is our oath to our people when we talk to them at 
home? I think that is our obligation. Sometimes I will take a vote that 
I am not particularly happy with, but I will do it because I believe I 
am adhering to my oath of office and believe it is the process that is 
not correct and we have to change the Constitution if we need to do it. 
I think this is so important, because I do not think we have the 
authority in the Constitution to start preemptive war, to go into 
nation-building and to change regimes. I just cannot see that it is 
there. I think that has led us to get into these problems since World 
War II especially.
  Of course, I did mention in my prepared text that declaration of war 
is important but also if we would restrain, as the Constitution does, 
the monetary authorities from printing money at will to finance wars 
like this, I think we would be fighting a lot less wars.

                          ____________________