[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16139-16142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            THE PRICE OF WAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 
60 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and 
all our early Presidents when he stated, ``Peace, commerce and honest 
friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none, which is 
one of the essential principles of our government.''
  The question is, whatever happened to this principle and should it be 
restored? We find the 20th century was wracked with war; peace was 
turned asunder and our liberties steadily eroded. Foreign alliances and 
meddling in the internal affairs of other nations became commonplace. 
On many occasions, involvement in military action occurred through U.N. 
resolutions or a Presidential executive order, despite the fact that 
the war power was explicitly placed in the hands of the Congress.
  Since World War II, nearly 100,000 deaths and over a quarter million 
wounded, not counting the many thousands claimed to have been affected 
by Agent Orange and the Persian Gulf War Syndrome, have all occurred 
without a declaration of war and without a clearcut victory. The entire 
20th century was indeed costly with over 600,000 killed in battle and 
an additional million wounded.
  If liberty had been truly enhanced during that time, less could be 
said about the imperfections of the policy. The evidence, however, is 
clear that we as a people are less free and the prosperity we still 
enjoy may be more illusionary than many realize.
  The innocent victims who have suffered at the hands of our militarism 
abroad are rarely considered by our government; yet, they may well be a 
major factor in this hatred now being directed toward America. It is 
not currently popular to question corporate or banking influence over 
the foreign policy that replaced that of Washington and Jefferson. 
Questioning foreign government influence on our policies, although 
known about for years, is not acceptable in the politically correct 
environment in which we live.
  There is little doubt that our role in the world dramatically changed 
in the 20th century, inexorably evolving from that of strict 
noninterventionism to that of sole superpower with the assumption that 
we were destined to be the world's policeman.
  By the end of the 20th century, in fact, this occurred. We have 
totally forgotten that for well over 100 years we followed the advice 
of the founders by meticulously avoiding overseas conflict. Instead, we 
now find ourselves in charge of an American hegemony spread to the four 
corners of the Earth.
  As the 21st century begins, there is not a country in the world that 
does not depend upon the U.S. for protections or fears her wrath if 
they refuse to do her bidding. As the 20th century progressed, American 
taxpayers were required to finance with great sacrifice financially and 
freedom-wise the buying of loyalty through foreign aid and intimidation 
of those others who did not cooperate.
  The question, though, remains, has this change been beneficial to 
freedom and prosperity here at home and has it promoted peace and trade 
throughout the world? Those who justify our interventionist policies 
abroad argue that the violation of the rule of law is not a problem 
considering the benefits we receive from maintaining the American 
empire, but has this really taken into consideration the cost in lives 
lost, the damage to long-term prosperity as well as the dollar cost and 
freedoms we have lost?
  What about the future? Has this policy of foreign intervention set 
the stage for radically changing America and the world in ways not yet 
seen? Were the founders completely off track because they lived in 
different times, or was the foreign policy they advised based on an 
essential principle of lasting value? Choosing the wrong answer to this 
question could very well be deadly to the grand experiment in liberty 
begun in 1776.
  The transition from nonintervention to our current role as world 
arbiter in all conflicts was insidious and fortuitous. In the early 
part of the 20th century, the collapse of the British Empire left a 
vacuum which was steadily filled by a U.S. presence around the world. 
In the latter part of the century, the results of World War II and the 
collapse of the Soviet system propelled us into our current role.
  Throughout most of the 20th century it was our competition with the 
Soviets that prompted our ever-expanded presence around the world. We 
are where we are today almost by default, but does that justify its 
being in our best interests?
  Disregarding for the moment the moral and constitutional arguments 
against foreign intervention, a strong case can be made against it for 
other reasons. It is clear that one intervention begets another. The 
first problem is rarely solved and the new ones are created. Indeed, in 
foreign affairs a slippery slope does exist.
  In recent years, we too often slipped into war through the back door 
with the purpose rarely defined or understood and the need for victory 
ignored. A restrained effort of intervention frequently explodes into 
something that we do not foresee. Policies end up doing the opposite of 
their intended purpose with unintended consequences resulting.
  The result then is that the action taken turns out to be actually 
detrimental to our national security interest; yet no effort is made to 
challenge the fundamental principle behind our foreign policy. It is 
this failure to adhere to a set of principles that has allowed us to 
slip into this role and, if unchallenged, could well undo the liberties 
we all cherish.
  Throughout history, there has always been a great temptation for 
rulers to spread their influence and pursue empire over liberty. 
Resisting this temptation to power rarely has been achieved. There 
always seems to be a natural inclination to yield to this historic 
human passion. Could it be that progress and civilization and promoting 
freedom require ignoring this impulse to control others, as the 
founders of this great Nation advised?
  Historically, the driving force behind world domination is usually an 
effort to control wealth. The Europeans were searching for gold when 
they came to the Americas. Now it is our turn to seek control over the 
black gold which drives much of what we do today in foreign affairs.
  Competing with a power like the Soviet Union prompted our involvement 
in areas of the world where the struggle for the balance of power was 
the sole motivating force. The foreign policy of the 20th century 
replaced the policy endorsed by our early Presidents and permitted our 
steadily growing involvement overseas in an effort to control the 
world's commercial interests with a special emphasis on oil.
  Our influence in the Middle East evolved out of concern for the newly 
created State of Israel in 1947 and to securing control over the flow 
of oil in that region. Israel's needs and Arab oil have influenced our 
foreign policy for more than half a century. In the 1950s, the CIA 
installed the Shah in Iran. It was not until the hostage crisis of the 
late 1970s that the unintended consequence occurred. This generated the

[[Page 16140]]

Iranian hatred of America and led to the takeover by the reactionary 
Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists and caused greater regional 
instability than we anticipated.
  Our meddling in the internal affairs of Iran was of no benefit to us 
and set the stage for our failed policy in dealing with Iraq. We allied 
ourselves in the 1980s with Iraq in its war with Iran and assisted 
Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports reconfirm, we 
did nothing to stop Hussein's development of chemical and biological 
weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their development. Now, as 
a consequence of that needless intervention, we are planning a risky 
war to remove him from power; and as usual, the probable result of such 
an effort would be something that our government does not anticipate 
like a takeover by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he is an 
enemy of the al-Qaeda and someone new well may be a close ally of the 
Islamic radicals.
  Although our puppet dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has lasted for many 
decades, it is becoming shakier every day. The Saudi people are not 
exactly friendly towards us, and our military presence on their holy 
soil is greatly resented. This contributes to the radical 
fundamentalist hatred directed toward us. Another unfavorable 
consequence to America, such as a regime change not to our liking, 
could soon occur in Saudi Arabia. It is not merely a coincidence that 
15 of the 9-11 terrorists are Saudis.
  The Persian Gulf War fought, without a declaration of war, is in 
reality still going on. It looks like that 9-11 may well have been a 
battle in that war perpetrated by fanatical guerrillas. It indicates 
how seriously flawed our foreign policy is.
  In the 1980s we got involved in the Soviet-Afghanistan war and 
actually sided with the forces of Osama bin Laden, helping him gain 
power. This obviously was an alliance of no benefit to the United 
States, and it has come back to haunt us.
  Our policy for years was to encourage Saudi Arabia to oppose 
communism by financing and promoting Islamic fundamentalism. Surely the 
shortcomings of that policy are evident to everyone.
  Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan on the eve of his 
indictment over Monica Lewinsky shattered a Taliban plan to expel Osama 
bin Laden from Afghanistan. Clinton's bombing of Baghdad on the eve of 
his impeachment hardly won any converts to our cause or reassured the 
Muslim people of the Middle Eastern countries of a U.S. balanced 
policy. The continued bombing of Iraq over these past 12 years, along 
with the deadly sanctions, resulted in hundreds of thousands of 
needless Iraqi civilian deaths, has not been beneficial to our security 
and has been used as one of the excuses for recruiting the fanatics 
ready to sacrifice their lives and demonstrating their hatred toward 
us.

                              {time}  1245

  Essentially all Muslims see our policy in the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict as being openly favorable toward Israel and in opposition to 
the Palestinians. It is for this reason they hold us responsible for 
Palestinian deaths since all the Israeli weapons are from the United 
States. Since the Palestinians do not even have an army, and most have 
to live in refugee camps, one should understand at least why the 
animosity builds, even if our pro-Israeli position can be explained.
  There is no end in site. Since 9-11, our involvement in the Middle 
East and in Saudi Arabia has grown significantly. Though we can badger 
those countries whose leaders depend on us to keep them in power to 
stay loyal to the United States, the common people of the region become 
more alienated. Our cozy relationship with the Russians may not be as 
long-lasting as our current administration hopes. Considering the $40 
billion trade deal recently made between Russia and Saddam Hussein, it 
is more than a bit ironic that we find the Russians now promoting free 
trade as a solution to a difficult situation while we are promoting 
war.
  This continuous escalation of our involvement overseas has been 
widespread. We have been in Korea for more than 50 years. We have 
promised to never back away from the China-Taiwan conflict over 
territorial disputes. Fifty-seven years after World War II we still 
find our military spread throughout Europe and Asia. And now the debate 
ranges over whether our national security requires that we, for the 
first time, escalate this policy of intervention to include 
anticipatory self-defense and preemptive war.
  If our interventions of the 20th century led to needless deaths and 
unwon wars and continuous unintended consequences, imagine what this 
new doctrine is about to unleash on the world. Our policy has prompted 
us to announce that our CIA will assassinate Saddam Hussein whenever it 
gets the chance, and that the government of Iraq is to be replaced. 
Evidence now has surfaced that the United Nations inspection teams in 
the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who were collecting 
information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and continue with 
their routine bombing missions.
  Why should there be a question of why Saddam Hussein might not 
readily accept U.N. inspectors without some type of assurances? Does 
anybody doubt that control of Iraqi oil supplies, second only to Saudi 
Arabia, is the real reason U.S. policy is belligerent toward Saddam 
Hussein? If it is merely to remove dictators around the world, this is 
the beginning of an endless task.
  In the transition from the original American foreign policy of peace, 
trade and neutrality to that of world policemen, we have sacrificed our 
sovereignty to world government organizations such as the U.N., the 
IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. To further confuse and undermine our 
position, we currently have embarked on a policy of unilateralism 
within these world organizations. This means we accept the principle of 
globalized government when it pleases us, but when it does not, we 
should ignore it for our own interest's sake.
  Acting in our own interest is to be applauded, but what we are 
getting is not a good alternative to one-world government. We do not 
get our sovereignty back, yet we continue to subject ourselves to great 
potential financial burden and loss of liberty as we shift from a 
national government with constitutional protection of rights to an 
international government where our citizens' rights are threatened by 
treaties we have not even ratified, like the Kyoto and the 
international criminal court treaties.
  We cannot depend on controlling the world government at some later 
date, even if that seems to be what we are able to do now. The 
unilateralist approach of domination over the world's leaders, and 
arbitrary ignoring of certain mandates, something we can do with 
impunity because of our intimidating power, serves only to further 
undermine our prestige and acceptability throughout the world. And this 
includes the Muslim countries as well as our European friends. This 
merely sets the stage for both our enemies and current friends to act 
in concert against our interest when the time comes. This is especially 
true if we become financially strapped and our dollar is sharply 
weakened and we are in a much more vulnerable bargaining position.
  Unilateralism within a globalist approach to government is the worst 
of all choices. It ignores national sovereignty, dignifies one-world 
government, and places us in the position of demanding dictatorial 
powers over the world community. Demanding the right to set all policy 
and exclude ourselves from jurisdictional restraints sows the seeds of 
future discontent and hostility. The downside is we get all the bills, 
risk the lives of our people without cause, and make ourselves the 
target for every event that goes badly. We get blamed for the 
unintended consequences not foreseen and become the target of the 
terrorists that evolve from the radicalized fringes.
  Long-term foreign interventionism does not serve our interest. 
Tinkering on the edges with current policy will not help. An announced 
policy of support for globalist government, assuming the financial and 
military role of world policemen, maintaining an

[[Page 16141]]

American world empire while flaunting unilateralism, is a recipe for 
disaster. U.S. unilateralism is a far cry from the nonintervention that 
the Founders advised.
  The term foreign policy does not exist in the Constitution. All 
members of the Federal Government have sworn to uphold the Constitution 
and should do only those things that are clearly authorized. Careful 
reading of the Constitution reveals Congress has a lot more 
responsibility than does the President in dealing with foreign affairs. 
The President is the Commander-in-Chief, but cannot declare war or 
finance military action without explicit congressional approval. A good 
starting point would be for all of us in the Congress to assume the 
responsibility given us to make sure the executive branch does not 
usurp any authority explicitly given to the Congress.
  A proper foreign policy of nonintervention is built on friendship 
with other nations, free trade and maximum travel, maximizing the 
exchanges of goods and services and ideas. Nations that trade with each 
other are definitely less likely to fight against each other. 
Unnecessary bellicosity and jingoism is detrimental to peace and 
prosperity and incites unnecessary confrontation. And yet today that is 
about all we hear coming from the politicians and the media pundits who 
are so anxious for this war against Iraq.
  Avoiding entangling alliances and meddling in the internal affairs of 
other nations is crucial, no matter how many special interests demand 
otherwise. The entangling alliances we should avoid include the complex 
alliances in the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. One-world 
government goals are anathema to the nonintervention and free trade. 
The temptation to settle disputes and install better governments abroad 
is fraught with great danger and many uncertainties.
  Protecting our national sovereignty and guaranteeing constitutional 
protection of our citizens' rights are crucial. Respecting the 
sovereignty of other nations, even when we are in disagreement with 
some of their policies, is also necessary. Changing others then becomes 
a job of persuasion and example, not force and intimidation, just as it 
is in trying to improve the personal behavior of our fellow citizens 
here at home.
  Defending our country from outside attack is legitimate and is of the 
highest priority. Protecting individual liberties should be our goal. 
This does not mean, however, that our troops follow our citizens or 
their investments throughout the world.
  While foreign visitors should be welcome, no tax-supported services 
should be provided. Citizenship should be given with caution and not 
automatically by merely stepping over a national boundary for the 
purpose of giving birth.
  A successful and prosperous society comes from such a policy and is 
impossible without a sound free-market economy, one not controlled by a 
central bank. Avoiding trade wars, devaluations, inflations, 
deflations, and disruption of free trade with protectionist legislation 
are impossible under a system of international trade dependent on 
fluctuating fiat currencies controlled by world central banks and 
influenced by powerful financial interests. Instability in trade is one 
of the prime causes of creating conditions leading to war.
  The basic moral principle underpinning a noninterventionist foreign 
policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It 
is based on nonviolence and friendship unless attacked, with 
determination for self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when 
we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply 
means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by the 
special interests that have an axe to grind or benefits to gain by 
controlling other foreign policy. Manipulating our country into 
conflicts that are none of our business and of no security interest 
provides no benefits to us, while exposing us to great risk financially 
and militarily.
  Our troops would be brought home under such conditions, 
systematically and soon. Being in Europe and Japan for over 50 years is 
long enough. The failure of Vietnam resulted in no occupation and a 
more westernized country now doing business with the United States. 
There is no evidence that the military approach in Vietnam was superior 
to that of trade and friendship. The lack of trade and sanctions have 
not served us well in Cuba or in the Middle East. The mission for our 
Coast Guard would change if our foreign policy became 
noninterventionist. They, too, would come home, protect our coast, and 
stop being the enforcers of bureaucratic laws that either should not 
exist or should be a State function.
  All foreign aid would be discontinued. Most evidence shows this money 
rarely helps the poor but instead solidifies power in the hands of 
dictators. There is no moral argument that can justify taxing poor 
people in this country to help rich people in poor countries. Much of 
the foreign aid, when spent, is channeled back to weapons manufacturers 
and other special interests in the United States who are the strong 
promoters of these foreign aid expenditures, yet it is all done in the 
name of humanitarian causes.
  A foreign policy for peace and freedom would prompt us to give ample 
notice, and then we would promptly leave the international 
organizations that have entangled us for over a half a century. U.S. 
membership in world government was hardly what the Founders envisioned 
when writing the Constitution.
  The principle of mark and reprisal would be revived, and specific 
problems, such as terrorist threats, would be dealt with on a contract 
basis, incorporating private resources to more accurately target our 
enemies and reduce the chances of needless and endless war. This would 
help prevent a continual expansion of a conflict into areas not 
relating to any immediate threat. By narrowing the target, there is 
less opportunity for special interests to manipulate our foreign policy 
to serve the financial needs of the oil and military weapons 
industries.
  The Logan Act would be repealed, thus allowing maximum freedom of our 
citizens to volunteer to support their war of choice. This would help 
diminish the enthusiasm for wars the proponents have used to justify 
our world policies and diminish the perceived need for a military 
draft.
  If we followed a constitutional policy of nonintervention, we would 
never have to entertain the aggressive notion of preemptive war based 
on speculation of what a country might do at some future date. 
Political pressure by other countries to alter our foreign policy for 
their benefit would never be a consideration. Commercial interests of 
our citizens investing overseas could not expect our armies to follow 
them and to protect their profits.

                              {time}  1300

  A noninterventionist foreign policy would not condone subsidies to 
our corporations through programs like the Export-Import Bank and the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation. These programs guarantee 
against losses while the risk takers want our military to protect their 
investments from political threats. This current flawed policy removes 
the tough decisions of when to invest in foreign countries and 
diminishes the pressure on those particular countries to clean up their 
political acts in order to entice foreign capital to move into their 
country. Today's foreign policy encourages bad investments. Ironically 
this is all done in the name of free trade and capitalism, but it does 
more to export jobs and businesses than promote free trade. Yet when it 
fails, capitalism and freedom are blamed.
  A noninterventionist foreign policy would go a long way toward 
preventing 9/11 type attacks upon us. The Department of Homeland 
Security would be unnecessary and the military, along with less 
bureaucracy in our intelligence-gathering agencies, could instead 
provide the security the new department is supposed to provide. A 
renewed respect for gun ownership and responsibility for defending 
one's property would provide additional protection against potential 
terrorists.

[[Page 16142]]

  There are many reasons why a policy for peace is superior to a policy 
of war. The principle that we do not have the moral authority to 
forcibly change government in foreign lands just because we do not 
approve of their shortcomings should be our strongest argument. But 
rarely today is a moral argument in politics worth much.
  The practical argument against it because of its record of failure 
should certainly prompt all thoughtful people to reconsider what we 
have been doing for the past many decades.
  We should all be aware that war is a failure of relationships between 
foreign powers. Since this is such a serious matter, our American 
tradition as established by the founders made certain that the 
executive is subservient to the more democratically responsive 
legislative branch on the issue of war. Therefore, no war is ever to be 
the prerogative of a President through his unconstitutional use of 
executive orders, nor should it ever be something where the legal 
authority comes from an international body such as NATO or the United 
Nations. Up until 50 years ago, this had been the American tradition.
  Nonintervention prevents the unexpected and unintended consequences 
that inevitably result from well-intended meddling in the affairs of 
others.
  Countries like Switzerland and Sweden, who promote neutrality and 
nonintervention, have benefited for the most part by remaining secure 
and free of war over the centuries. Nonintervention consumes a lot less 
of the Nation's wealth. With less wars, the higher the standard of 
living for all citizens. But this, of course, is not attractive to the 
military-industrial complex which enjoys a higher standard of living at 
the expense of the taxpayer when a policy of intervention and constant 
war preparation is carried out.
  Wisdom, morality and the Constitution are very unlikely to invade the 
minds of the policymakers that control our foreign affairs. We have 
institutionalized foreign intervention over the past 100 years by the 
teachings of all our major universities and the propaganda that the 
media spews out. The powerful influence over our policy, both domestic 
and foreign, is not soon going to go away.
  I am convinced, though, that eventually restraint in our 
interventions overseas will be guided by a more reasonable 
constitutional policy. Economic reality will dictate it. Although 
political pressure in times of severe economic downturn and domestic 
strife encourages planned distractions overseas, these adventures 
always cause economic harm due to the economic costs. When the 
particular country or empire involved overreaches, as we are currently 
doing, national bankruptcy and a severely weakened currency call the 
whole process to a halt.
  The Soviet system, armed with an aggressive plan to spread its empire 
worldwide, collapsed, not because we attacked it militarily but for 
financial and economic reasons. They no longer could afford it and the 
resources and wealth that it drained finally turned the people against 
its authoritarian rule.
  Maintaining an overseas empire is incompatible with the American 
tradition of liberty and prosperity. The financial drain and the 
antagonism that it causes with our enemies, and even our friends, will 
finally force the American people to reject the policy outright. There 
will be no choice. Gorbachev just walked away and Yeltsin walked in, 
with barely a ripple. A nonviolent revolution of unbelievable historic 
magnitude occurred and the Cold War ended. We are not immune from such 
a similar change.
  This Soviet collapse ushered in the age of unparalleled American 
dominance over the entire world and along with it allowed the new 
expanded hot war between the West and the Muslim East. All the 
hostility directed toward the West built up over the centuries between 
the two factions is now directed toward the United States. We are now 
the only power capable of paying for and literally controlling the 
Middle East and its cherished wealth, and we have not hesitated. Iraq, 
with its oil and water and agricultural land, is a prime target of our 
desire to further expand our dominion. The battle is growing ever so 
tense with our acceptance and desire to control the Caspian Sea oil 
riches. But Russia, now licking its wounds and once again accumulating 
wealth, will not sit idly by and watch the American empire engulf this 
region. When time runs out for us, we can be sure Russia will once 
again be ready to fight for control of all those resources in countries 
adjacent to her borders. And expect the same from China and India. And 
who knows, maybe one day even Japan will return to the ancient art of 
using force to occupy the cherished territories in their region of the 
world.
  The most we can hope for will be, once the errors of our ways are 
acknowledged and we can no longer afford our militarism, we will 
reestablish the moral principle that underpins the policy of ``peace, 
commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances 
with none.'' Our modern-day war hawks represent neither this American 
principle nor do they understand how the love of liberty drove the 
founders in their great battle against tyranny.
  We must prepare for the day when our financial bankruptcy and the 
failure of our effort at world domination are apparent. The solution to 
such a crisis can be easily found in our Constitution and in our 
traditions. But ultimately, the love of liberty can only come from a 
change in the hearts and minds of the people and with an answered 
prayer for the blessings of divine intervention.

                          ____________________