[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 111 (Thursday, September 8, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H7805-H7809]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
U.S. AGGRESSIVE INTERVENTIONISM POLICY IS MISGUIDED
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.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, many reasons have been given for why we fight
and our youth must die in Iraq. The reasons now given for why we must
continue this war bear no resemblance to the reasons given to gain the
support of the American people and the United States Congress prior to
our invasion in March of 2003.
Before the war, we were told we faced an imminent threat to our
national security from Saddam Hussein. This rationale, now proven
grossly mistaken, has been changed. Now we are told we must honor the
fallen by completing the mission. To do otherwise would demean the
sacrifice of those who have died or been wounded.
Any lack of support for completing the mission is said by the
promoters of the war to be unpatriotic, un-American, and detrimental to
the troops. They insist the only way one can support the troops is to
never waver on the policy of nation-building, no matter how ill-founded
that policy may be. The obvious flaw in this argument is that the
mission of which they so reverently speak has changed constantly from
the very beginning.
Though most people think this war started in March of 2003, the seeds
were sown many years before. The actual military conflict involving
U.S. troops against Iraq began in January of 1991. The prelude to this
actually goes back over 100 years when the value of Middle East oil was
recognized by the industrialized West. Our use of troops to eject
Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was the beginning of the current conflict
with the Muslim fundamentalists who have been, for the last decade,
determined to force the removal of American troops from all Muslim
countries, especially the entire Arabian peninsula, which they consider
holy. Though the strategic and historic reasons for our involvement in
the Middle East are complex, the immediate reasons given in 2002 and
2003 for our invasion of Iraq were precise. The only problem is, they
were not based on facts.
The desire by American policymakers to engineer regime change in Iraq
had been smoldering since the first Persian Gulf conflict in 1991. This
reflected a dramatic shift in our policy since, in the 1980s, we
maintained a friendly alliance with Saddam Hussein as we assisted him
in his war against our arch nemesis, the Iranian Ayatollah.
Most Americans ignore that we provided assistance to this ruthless
dictator with biological and chemical weapon technologies. We heard no
complaints in the 1980s about his treatment of the Kurds and the
Shiites or the ruthless war he waged against Iran. Our policy toward
Iraq played a major role in convincing Saddam Hussein he had free reign
in the Middle East, and the results demonstrate the serious
shortcomings of our foreign policy of interventionism that we have
followed now for over 100 years.
In 1998, Congress capitulated to the desires of the previous
administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which
stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
This act made it official, quote: ``The policy of the United States is
to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.''
This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by
neoconservatives as justification for the preemptive and deliberate
invasion of Iraq.
When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step
toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national
security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in
policy.
Shortly after the new administration took office in January 2001,
this goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein quickly morphed into a policy
of remaking the entire Middle East, starting with regime change in
Iraq. This aggressive interventionist policy surprised some people,
since the victorious 2000 campaign indicated we should pursue a foreign
policy of humility, no nation-building, reduce deployment of troops
overseas, and a rejection of the notion that we serve as the world's
policeman.
{time} 1915
The 9/11 disaster proved a catalyst to push for invading Iraq and
restructuring the entire Middle East. Though the plan had existed for
years, it quickly was recognized that the fear engendered by the 9/11
attacks could be used to mobilize the American people and Congress to
support this war.
Nevertheless, supposedly legitimate reasons had to be given for the
already planned preemptive war; and as we now know, the intelligence
had to be fixed to the policy.
Immediately after 9/11, the American people were led to believe that
Saddam Hussein somehow was responsible for the attacks. The fact that
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were enemies, not friends, was kept
from the public by a compliant media and the lazy Congress. Even today
many Americans still are convinced of an alliance between the two.
The truth is Saddam Hussein never permitted al Qaeda into Iraq out of
fear that his secular government would be challenged. And yet, today,
we find that al Qaeda is now very much present in Iraq and causing
chaos there.
The administration repeatedly pumped out alarming propaganda that
Saddam Hussein was a threat to us with his weapons of mass destruction,
meaning nuclear, biological and chemical. Since we helped Saddam
Hussein obtain biological and chemical weapons in the 1980s, we assumed
that he had maintained a large supply, which, of course, turned out not
to be true. The people being frightened by 9/11 easily accepted these
fear-mongering charges.
Behind the scenes many were quite aware that Israel's influence on
our foreign policy played a role. She had argued for years along with
the neoconservatives for an Iraq regime change. This support was nicely
coordinated with the Christian-Zionist enthusiasm for the war.
[[Page H7806]]
As these reasons for the war lost credibility and support, other
reasons were found for why we had to fight. As the lone superpower, we
were told we had a greater responsibility to settle the problems of the
world lest someone else get involved.
Maintaining and expanding our empire is a key element of the
neoconservative philosophy. This notion that we must fight to spread
American goodness was well received by these neo-Jacobeans. They saw
the war as a legitimate moral crusade, arguing that no one should be
allowed to stand in our way. In their minds, using force to spread
democracy is legitimate and necessary.
We also were told the war was necessary for national security
purposes because of the threat Saddam Hussein presented, although the
evidence was fabricated. Saddam Hussein's ability to attack us was
nonexistent, but the American people were ripe for alarming predictions
by those who wanted this war.
Of course, the routine canard for our need to fight, finance, and
meddle around the world ever since the Korean War was repeated
incessantly. U.N. resolutions had to be in forced lest the United
Nations be discredited. The odd thing was that on this occasion the
United Nations itself did everything possible to stop our preemptive
attack. As it turned out, Saddam Hussein was a lot closer to compliance
than anyone dreamed.
It was not long before concern for the threat of Saddam Hussein
became near hysterical, drowning out any reasoned opposition to the
planned war. The one argument that was not publicly used by those who
propagandized for the war may well be the most important: oil. Though
the administration in 1990 hinted briefly that we had to eject Saddam
Hussein in Kuwait because of oil, the stated reasons for that conflict
soon transformed into stopping a potential Hitler and enforcing U.N.
resolutions.
Publicly, oil is not talked about very much. But behind the scenes,
many acknowledge this is the real reason we fight. It is not only the
politicians who say this. American consumers have always enjoyed cheap
gasoline and want it kept that way. The real irony is that the war has
reduced Iraqi oil production by \1/2\ million barrels per day, and
prices are soaring, demonstrating another unintended economic
consequence of war.
Oil in the Middle East has been a big issue since the Industrial
Revolution when it was realized that the black substance bubbling out
of the ground in places like Iraq had great value. It is interesting to
note that in the early 20th century, Germany, fully aware of oil's
importance, allied itself with the Turkish Ottoman Empire and secured
the earliest rights to drill Iraqi oil. They built the Anatalya
railroad between Baghdad and Basra and obtained oil and mineral rights
on 20 kilometers on each side of this right-of-way.
World War I changed all this, allowing the French and the British to
divide the oil wealth of the entire Middle East. The Versailles Treaty
created the artificial nation of Iraq, and it was not long before
American oil companies were drilling and struggling to participate in
the control of Middle East oil. But it was never smooth sailing for any
occupying force in Iraq.
After World War I, the British generals, upon arriving to secure
their oil, said, ``Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as
conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.'' Not long afterwards a jihad
was declared against Britain and eventually they were forced to leave.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Too bad we are not
better at studying history.
After World War II, the U.S. emerged as the number one world power
and moved to assume what some believe was our responsibility to control
Middle East oil in competition with the Soviets. This role prompted us
to use our CIA, along with the help of the British, to oust
democratically elected Mohammad Mosadek from power in Iran and install
the Shah as a U.S. puppet.
We not only supported Saddam Hussein against Iran; we also supported
Osama bin Laden in the 1980s, aggravating the situation in the Middle
East and causing unintended consequences. With CIA assistance, we
helped develop the educational program to radicalize Islamic youth in
many Arab nations, especially in Saudi Arabia, to fight the Soviets. We
even provided a nuclear reactor to Iran in 1967, which today leads us
to threaten another war. All of this has come back to haunt us.
Meddling in the affairs of others has consequences.
Finally, after years of plotting and maneuvering, the neoconservative
plan to invade Iraq came before the U.S. House in October of 2002 to be
rubber-stamped. Though the plan was hatched years before, and the
official policy of the United States Government was to remove Saddam
Hussein ever since 1998, various events delayed the vote until this
time. By October, the vote was deemed urgent so as to embarrass anyone
who opposed it by making them politically vulnerable in the November
election.
The ploy worked. The resolution passed easily, and it served the
interests of the proponents of war in the November election. The
resolution, H.J. 114, explicitly cited the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998
as one of the reasons we had to go to war. The authorization granted
the President to use force against Iraq cited two precise reasons:
number one, to defend the national security of the U.S. against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and, number two, enforce all relevant
United Nations council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Many other reasons were given to stir the emotions of the American
public and the U.S. Congress, reasons that were grossly misleading and
found not to be true. The pretense of a legal justification was a sham.
The fact that Congress is not permitted under the Constitution to
transfer the war power to a President was ignored. Only Congress can
declare war, that is, if we were inclined to follow the rule of law.
To add insult to injury, the House joint resolution cited the United
Nations resolution as justification for the war. Ignoring the
Constitution while using the U.N. to justify the war showed callous
disregard for the restraints carefully written in the Constitution. The
authors deliberately wanted to make war difficult to enter without
legislative debate, and they purposely kept the responsibility out of
the hands of the executive branch. Surely they never dreamed that
international government would have influence over our foreign policy
or tell us when we should enter into armed conflict.
The legal maneuvering to permit this war was tragic to watch; but the
notion that Saddam Hussein, a Third World punk, without an air force,
navy and hardly an army, or any antiaircraft weaponry, was an outright
threat to the United States 6,000 miles away tells you how hysterical
fear can be used to pursue a policy of needless war for quite different
reasons.
Today, though, all the old reasons for going to war have been
discredited and are no longer used to justify continuing the war. Now
we are told we must complete the mission, and yet no one seems to know
exactly what the mission is or when it can be achieved.
By contrast, when war is properly declared against a country, we can
expect an all-out effort until the country surrenders. Without a
declaration of war, as the Constitution requires, it is left to the
President to decide when to start the war and when the war is over. We
had sad experiences with this process in Korea and especially in
Vietnam.
Pursuing this war merely to save face or to claim it is a way to
honor those who have already died or been wounded is hardly a reason
that more people should die.
We are told that we cannot leave until we have a democratic Iraq. But
what if Iraq votes to have a Shiite theocracy, which it looks like the
majority wants as their form of government, and women, Christians and
Sunnis are made second-class citizens?
It is a preposterous notion and points out the severe shortcomings of
a democracy where a majority rules and minorities suffer. Thankfully,
our Founding Fathers understood the great dangers of a democracy. They
insisted on a constitutional Republic with a weak central government
and an executive branch beholden to the legislative branch in foreign
affairs.
The sooner we realize we cannot afford this war, the better. We have
gotten ourselves into a civil war within the Islamic community. But
could it
[[Page H7807]]
be, as it had been for over a hundred years prior to our invasion, that
oil really is the driving issue behind a foreign presence in the Middle
East?
It is rather ironic that the consequence of our intervention has been
sky-rocketing oil prices, with Iraqi oil production still significantly
below pre-war levels. If democracy is not all it is cracked up to be,
and a war for oil is blatantly immoral and unproductive, the question
still remains, why do we fight? More precisely, why should we fight?
When is enough killing enough? Why does man so casually accept war,
which brings so much suffering to so many, when so little is achieved?
Why do those who suffer and die so willingly accept the excuses for
the wars that need not be fought? Why do so many defer to those who are
enthused about war and who claim it is a solution to a problem without
asking them why they themselves do not fight? It is always other men
and other men's children who must sacrifice life and limb for reasons
that make no sense, reasons that are said to be our patriotic duty to
fight and die for. How many useless wars have been fought for lies that
deserved no hearing? When will it all end?
Since no logical answers can be given for why we fight, it might be
better to fight about why we should not fight. A case can be made that
if this war does not end soon it will spread and engulf the entire
region. We have already been warned that war against Iran is an option
that remains on the table for reasons no more reliable than those given
for the preemptive strike against Iraq.
Let me give you a few reasons why this war in Iraq should not be
fought. It is not in our national interest. On the contrary, pursuing
this war endangers our security, increases the chances of a domestic
terrorist attack, weakens our defenses, and motivates our enemies to
join together in opposition to our domineering presence around the
world. Does anyone believe that Russia, China, and Iran will give us
free rein over the entire Middle East and its oil?
Tragically, we are setting the stage for a much bigger conflict. It
is possible that this war could evolve into something much worse than
Vietnam.
This war has never been declared. It is not a constitutional war; and
without a proper beginning, there can be no proper ending. The
vagueness instills doubts in all Americans, both supporters and
nonsupporters, as to what will be accomplished. Supporters of the war
want total victory, which is not achievable with a vague mission.
{time} 1930
Now, the majority of Americans are demanding an end to this dragged-
out war that many fear will spread before it is over. It is virtually
impossible to beat a determined guerilla resistance to a foreign-
occupying force. After 30 years, the Vietnam guerillas, following the
unbelievable suffering, succeeded in forcing all foreign troops from
their homeland.
History shows that Iraqi Muslims have always been determined to
resist any foreign power on their soil. We ignored that history and
learned nothing from Vietnam. How many lives, theirs and ours, are
worth losing to prove the tenacity of guerilla fighters supported by a
large number of local citizens?
Those who argue it is legitimate to protect our oil some day must
realize that it is not our oil, no matter how strong and sophisticated
our military is. We know the war so far has played havoc with oil
prices and the market continues to discount problems in the region for
years to come. No end is in sight regarding the uncertainty of Middle
East oil production caused by this conflict.
So far our policies inadvertently have encouraged the development of
an Islamic state with Iranian allied Shiites in charge. This has led to
Iranian support for the insurgents and placed Iran in the position of
being the true victor in this war as its alliance with Iraq grows.
This could place Iran and its allies in the enviable position of
becoming the oil powerhouse in the region, if not the world, once it
has control over the oil fields near Basra. This unintended alliance
with Iran plus the benefit to Osama bin Laden's recruiting efforts will
in the end increase the danger to Israel by rallying the Arab and
Muslim people against us.
One of the original stated justifications for the war has been
accomplished. Since 1998, the stated policy of the United States
Government was to bring regime change and get rid of Saddam Hussein.
This has been done. But instead of peace and stability, we have sown
the seeds of chaos. Nevertheless, the goal of removing Saddam Hussein
has been achieved and is a reason to stop the fighting.
There were no weapons of mass destruction, no biological, chemical or
nuclear weapons, so we can be assured the Iraqis pose no threat to
anyone, certainly not to the United States.
No evidence existed to show an alliance between Iraq and al Qaeda
before the war. And ironically, our presence there is now encouraging
al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to move in to fill the vacuum we created.
The only relationship between Iraq and 9/11 is that our policy in the
Middle East continues to increase the likelihood of another terrorist
attack on our homeland.
We should not fight because it is simply not worth it. What are we
going to get for nearly 2,000 soldier deaths and 20,000 severe
casualties? Was the $350 billion worth it? This is a cost that will be
passed on to future generations through an expanded national debt. I
will bet most Americans can think of a lot better ways to have spent
this money.
Today's program of guns and butter will be more damaging to our
economy than a similar program was in the 1960s which gave us the
stagflation of the 1970s. The economic imbalances today are much
greater than they were in those decades. Eventually we will come to
realize that the Wilsonian idealism of using America's resources to
promote democracy around the world through force is a seriously flawed
policy. Wilson pretended to be spreading democracy worldwide, and yet
women in the U.S. at that time were not even allowed to vote.
Democracy where the majority dictates the rules cannot protect
minority and individual rights. In addition, using our force to impose
our will on others almost always backfires. There is no reason that our
efforts in the 21st century to impose a Western-styled government in
Iraq would be any more successful than the British were after World War
I. This especially cannot work if democracy is only an excuse for our
occupation and the real reasons are left unrecognized.
It boils down to the fact that we do not really have any sound
reasons for continuing this fight. The original reasons for the war
never existed and the new reasons are not credibility. We hear only
that we must carry on so those who have already suffered death and
injury did not do so in vain.
If the original reasons for starting the war were false, simply
continuing in the name of those fallen makes no sense. More loss of
life can never justify earlier loss of life if they died for false
reasons. This being the case, it is time to reassess the policies that
have gotten us into this mess.
The mess we face in the Middle East and Afghanistan and the threat of
terrorism within our own borders are not a result of the policies of
this administration alone. Problems have been building for many years
and have only gotten much worse with our most recent policy of forcibly
imposing regime change in Iraq. We must recognize that the stalemate in
Korea, the loss in Vietnam, and the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan
all result from the same flawed foreign policy of interventionism that
our government has pursued for over 100 years.
It would be overly simplistic to say that the current administration
alone is responsible for the mess in Iraq. By rejecting the advice of
the Founders and our early Presidents, our leaders have drifted away
from the admonitions against entangling alliance and nation-building.
Policing the world is not our calling or our mandate. Besides, the
Constitution does not permit it. Undeclared wars have not enhanced our
national security.
The consensus on foreign interventionism has been pervasive. Both
major parties have come to accept our role as the world's policeman,
despite periodic campaign rhetoric stating otherwise. The media in
particular, especially in the early stages, propagandize in favor
[[Page H7808]]
of war. It is only when the costs become prohibitive and the war loses
popular support that the media criticize the effort.
It is not only our Presidents that deserve the blame when they
overstep their authority and lead the country into inappropriate wars.
Congress deserves equally severe criticism for acquiescing to the
demands of the executive to go needlessly to war. It has been known
throughout history that kings, dictators, and the executive branches of
governments are always overly eager to go to war. This is precisely why
our Founders tried desperately to keep decisions about going to war in
the hands of the legislature. But this process has failed, failed,
failed us for the last 65 years.
Congress routinely has rubber-stamped the plans of our Presidents and
even the United Nations to enter into war through the back door.
Congress at any time can prevent and stop all undue foreign
entanglements pursued by the executive branch merely by refusing to
finance them.
The current Iraq war now going on for 15 years spans the
administration of three Presidents and many Congresses controlled by
both parties. This makes Congress every bit as responsible for the
current quagmire as the President. But the real problem is the
acceptance by our country as a whole of the principle of meddling in
the internal affairs of other nations when unrelated to our national
security.
Intervention, no matter how well intended, inevitably boomerangs and
comes back to haunt us. Minding our own business is not only
economical, it is the only policy that serves our national security
interests and the cause of peace.
The neoconservatives who want to remake the entire Middle East are
not interested in the pertinent history of this region. Creating an
artificial Iraq after World War I as a unified country is like mixing
water and oil. It has only led to frustration, anger and hostilities
with the resulting instability creating conditions ripe for
dictatorship.
The occupying forces will not permit any of the three regions of Iraq
to govern themselves. This is strictly motivated by a desire to exert
control over the oil. Self-determination and independence for each
region or even a true republican form of government with a minimalist
central authority was never considered, yet it is the only answer to
the difficult political problems that area faces.
The relative and accidental independence of the Kurds and Shiites in
the 1990s served those regions well and no suicide terrorism existed
during that decade. The claim that our immediate withdrawal from Iraq
would cause chaos is not proven. It did not happen in Vietnam or even
in Somalia. Even today the militias of the Kurds and Shiites may well
be able to maintain order in their regions much better than we can
currently. Certainly, the Sunnis can take care of themselves, and it
might be in their best interests for all three groups not to fight each
other when we leave.
One thing for sure, if we left, no more young Americans would have to
die for an indefinable cause. Instead, we have been forcing on the
people of Iraq a type of democracy that, if implemented, will mean an
Islamic state under Sharia' law.
Already we read stories of barbers no longer being safe shaving
beards; Christians are threatened and forced to leave the country, and
burkas are returning out of fear. Unemployment is over 50 percent and
oil production is still significantly below prewar levels. These
results are not worth fighting and dying for.
In this war, like all others, the propagandists and promoters
themselves do not fight nor do their children. It is always worth the
effort to wage war when others must suffer and die. Many of those who
today pumped the Nation up with war fever were nowhere to be found when
their numbers were called in the 1960s, when previous Presidents and
Congresses thought so little about sending young men off to war. Then
it was in their best interest to find more important things to do
despite the so-called equalizing draft.
The inability of taxpayers to fund both guns and butter has not
deterred those who smell the glory of war. Notoriously great nations
fall once their appetite for foreign domination outstrips their
citizens' ability or willingness to pay. We tried the guns and butter
approach in the 1960s with bad results, and the same will happen again
as a consequence of the current political decision not to cut back on
any expenditure, domestic or foreign.
Veto nothing is the current policy. Tax, borrow and print to pay the
bills is today's conventional wisdom. The problem is that all the bills
eventually must be paid. There is no free lunch and there is no free
war. The economic consequences of such a policy are well known and
documented. Excessive spending leads to excessive deficits, higher
taxes, more borrowing and inflation which spells economic problems that
always clobber the middle class and the poor.
Already this suffering has begun. A lackluster recovery, low-paying
jobs, outsourcing, and social unrest already are apparent. The economic
price we pay along with the human suffering is an extravagant price for
a war that was started with false information and now is prolonged for
reasons unrelated to our national security. This policy has led to
excessive spending overseas and neglect at home. It invites enemies to
attack us and drain the resources needed to defend our homeland and
care for our own people.
We are obligated to learn something from the tragedy of Katrina about
the misallocation of funds away from our infrastructure to the
rebuilding of Iraq after first destroying Iraq. If ever there was a
time for us to reassess our policy of foreign intervention it is today.
It is time to look inward and attend to the constitutional needs of our
people and forget about the grandiose schemes to remake the world in
our image through the use of force. These efforts not only are doomed
to fail, as they have been for the past 100 years, but they invite
economic and strategic military problems that are harmful to our
national security interests.
We have been told that we must fight to protect our freedoms here at
home. These reasons are given to make the sacrifices more tolerable and
noble. Without an honorable cause, the suffering becomes intolerable.
Hiding from the truth, though, in the end is no panacea for a war that
promises no peace.
The most important misjudgment regarding Iraq that must be dealt with
is the charge that Muslim terrorists attack us out of envy for our
freedoms and our prosperity and our way of life. There is no evidence
this is the case. On the contrary, those who have extensively
researched this issue conclude that the number one reason suicide
terrorists attack anywhere in the world is because their land is
occupied by a foreign military power.
{time} 1945
Pretending otherwise and constantly expanding our military presence
in more Arab and Muslim countries as we have since 1990 has only
increased the danger of more attacks on our soil, as well as in those
countries that have allied themselves with us. If we deny this truth,
we do so at our own peril.
It is not unusual for the war crusaders to condemn those who speak
the truth in an effort to end an unnecessary war. They claim those who
want honest reasons for the enormous sacrifice are unpatriotic and un-
American, but these charges only serve to exacerbate the social unrest.
Any criticism of policy, no matter how flawed the policy is, is said to
be motivated by a lack of support for the troops. Yet it is
preposterous to suggest that a policy that would have spared the lives
of 1,900 servicemen and -women lacks concern for the well-being of our
troops. The absence of good reasoning to pursue this war prompts the
supporters of the war to demonize the skeptics and the critics. They
have no other defense.
Those who want to continue this war accuse those who lost loved ones
in Iraq, and oppose the war, of using the dead for personal political
gain. But what do the war proponents do when they claim the reason we
must fight on is to honor the sacrifice of the military personnel we
lost by completing the mission?
The big difference is that one group argues for saving lives, while
the other justifies more killing, and by that logic, the additional
deaths will require even more killing to make sure that they, too, have
not died in vain.
[[Page H7809]]
Therefore, the greater number who have died, the greater is the
motivation to complete the mission. This defies logic. This argument to
persevere has been used throughout history to continue wars that could
and should have ended much sooner. This was especially true for World
War I and Vietnam.
A sad realism struck me recently reading how our Marines in
Afghanistan must now rely on donkey transportation in their efforts at
Nation building and military occupation. Evidently, the Taliban is
alive and well, as Osama bin Laden remains in this region. But does
this not tell us something about our naive assumption that our economic
advantages and our technical knowledge can subdue and control anybody?
We are traversing the Afghan mountains on donkeys and losing lives
daily in Baghdad with homemade, primitive bombs. Our power and
dominance clearly is limited by the determination of those who see us
as occupiers, proving that just more money and sophisticated weapons
will not bring us victory. Sophisticated weapons and the use of
unlimited military power is no substitute for diplomacy designed to
promote peace while reserving force only for defending our national
interests.
Changing our policy of meddling in the affairs of others will not
come easily or quickly, but a few signals to indicate a change in our
attitude would go a long way to bringing peace to a troubled land.
First, we must soon, and Congress can do this through the budget
process, stop the construction of all permanent bases in Iraq and any
other Muslim country in the region. Think of how we would react if the
Chinese had the military edge on us and laid claims to the Gulf of
Mexico and building bases within the United States in order to promote
their superior way of life. Is it not ironic that we close down bases
here at home while building new ones overseas? Domestic bases might
well promote security, while bases in Muslim Nations only elicit more
hatred toward us.
Second, the plans for the biggest U.S. embassy in the world, costing
nearly $1 billion, must be cancelled. This structure in Baghdad sends a
message, like the military bases being built, that we expect to be in
Iraq and running Iraq for a long time to come.
Third, all military forces in Iraq and on the Arabian peninsula must
be moved offshore at the earliest time possible. All responsibility for
security and control of the oil must be transferred to the Iraqis from
the United States as soon as possible, within months, not years.
The time will come when our policies dealing with foreign affairs
will change for the better, but that will be because we can no longer
afford the extravagance of war. This will occur when the American
people realize that war causes too much suffering here at home and the
benefits of peace again become attractive to us all. Part of this
recognition will involve a big drop in the value of the dollar, higher
interest rates, and rampant price inflation.
Though these problems are serious and threaten our freedoms and way
of life, there is every reason to work for the traditional
constitutional foreign policy that promotes peace over war, while not
being tempted to mold the world in our image through force. We should
not forget that what we did not achieve by military force in Vietnam
was essentially achieved with the peace that came from our military
failure and withdrawal of our Armed Forces. Today, through trade and
peace, U.S. investments and economic cooperation has Westernized
Vietnam far more than our military efforts ever could have.
We must remember, initiating force to impose our will on others
negates all the goodness for which we profess to stand. We cannot be
fighting to secure our freedom if we impose laws like the PATRIOT Act
and the national ID card on the American people.
Unfortunately, we have lost faith and confidence in the system of
government with which we have been blessed. Today, too many Americans
support, at least in the early stages, the use of force to spread our
message of hope and freedom. They too often are confused by the
rhetoric that our armies are needed to spread American goodness. Using
force injudiciously, instead of spreading the worthy message of
American freedom through peaceful means, antagonizes our enemies,
alienates our allies and threatens personal liberties here at home
while burdening our economy.
If confidence cannot be restored in our American traditions of peace
and trade, our influence throughout the world would be enhanced just as
it was once we rejected the military approach in Vietnam.
This change in policy can come easily once the people of this country
decide that there is a better way to conduct ourselves throughout the
world. Whenever the people turn against war as a tool to promote
certain beliefs, the war ceases. That is what we need today. Then we
can get down to the business of setting an example of how peace and
freedom brings prosperity in an atmosphere that allows for excellence
and virtue to thrive.
A powerful bureaucratic military state negates all efforts to
preserve these conditions that have served America so well up until
recent times. That is not what the American dream is all about. Without
a change in attitude, the American dream dies. A simple change that
restates the principles of liberty enshrined in our Constitution will
serve us well in solving all the problems we face. The American people
are up to the task. I hope the Congress is as well.
____________________