[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 130 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[House]
[Page H8801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMING HOME MAKES SENSE, STAYING DOES NOT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, coming home makes sense; staying does not.
Supporters of the war in Iraq, as well as some nonsupporters, warn of
the dangers if we leave. But is it not quite possible that these
dangers are simply a consequence of having gone into Iraq in the first
place, rather than a consequence of leaving?
{time} 1545
Isn't it possible that staying only makes the situation worse? If
chaos results after our departure, it is because we occupied Iraq, not
because we left. The original reasons for our preemptive strike are
long forgotten, having been based on false assumptions. The
justification given now is that we must persist in this war or else
dishonor those who already have died or been wounded. We are also told
civil strife likely will engulf all of Iraq.
But what is the logic of perpetuating a flawed policy where more
Americans die just because others have suffered? More American deaths
cannot possibly help those who have already been injured or killed.
Civil strive, if not civil war, already exists in Iraq. And despite
the infighting, all factions oppose our occupation. The insistence on
using our military to occupy and run Iraq provides convincing evidence
to our detractors inside and outside of Iraq that we have no intention
of leaving.
Building permanent military bases and a huge embassy confirms these
fears.
We deny the importance of oil and Israel's influence on our policy,
yet we fail to convince the Arab/Muslim world that our intentions are
purely humanitarian.
In truth, our determined presence in Iraq actually increases the odds
of regional chaos, inciting Iran and Syria, while aiding Osama Bin
Laden in his recruiting efforts. Leaving Iraq would do the opposite,
though not without some dangers that rightfully should be blamed on our
unwise invasion rather than our exit.
Many experts believe Bin Laden welcomed our invasion and occupation
of two Muslim countries. It bolsters his claim that the United States
intended to occupy and control the Middle East all along. This has
galvanized radical Muslim fundamentalists against us. Osama Bin Laden's
campaign would surely suffer if we left.
We should remember that losing a war to China over the control of
North Korea ultimately did not enhance communism in China, as she now
has accepted many capitalist principles. In fact, China today
outproduces us in many ways, as reflected by our negative trade balance
with her.
We lost a war in Vietnam and the domino theory that communism would
spread throughout Southeast Asia was proven wrong. Today, Vietnam
accepts American investment dollars and technology. We maintain a trade
relationship with Vietnam that the war never achieved.
We contained the USSR and her thousands of nuclear warheads without
military confrontation, leading to the collapse and the disintegration
of a powerful Soviet empire. Today, we trade with Russia and her
neighbors as the market economy spreads throughout the world without
the use of arms.
We should heed the words of Ronald Reagan about his experience with a
needless and mistaken military occupation of Lebanon. Sending troops
into Lebanon seemed like a good idea in 1983, but in 1990, President
Reagan said in his memoirs, ``We did not appreciate fully enough the
depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle
East such a jungle. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I
believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet, the
irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our
policy there.''
During the occupation of Lebanon by American, French and Israeli
troops between 1982 and 1986 there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in
that country. One horrific attack killed 241 U.S. Marines. Yet, once
these foreign troops were removed, the suicide attacks literally
stopped. Today, we should once again rethink our policy in this region.
Madam Speaker, this is the point I want to make. It is amazing what
ending military intervention in the internal affairs of others can
achieve. Setting an example of how a free market economy works does
wonders. We should have confidence in how freedom works, rather than
relying on blind faith and the use of military force to spread our
message. Setting an example and using persuasion is always superior to
military force in showing how others might live. Force and war are
tools of authoritarians. They are never tools of champions of liberty
and justice. Force and war inevitably leads to dangerous unintended
consequences.
____________________