[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 22802-22803]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 14, 2002

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, government efforts at benevolence always 
backfire. Inevitably, unintended consequences overwhelm the short-term 
and narrow benefits of authoritarian programs designed to make the 
economic system fair, the people morally better, and the world safe for 
democracy. One hundred years of intense government ``benevolence'' in 
the United States has brought us to the brink of economic collapse, a 
domestic police state, and perpetual war overseas. And now our 
obsession with conquering and occupying Iraq is about to unleash 
consequences that no one can accurately foresee. The negative 
possibilities are unlimited and the benefits negligible.
  Some have warned that the planned pre-emptive invasion of Iraq could 
prove so destabilizing to the region and the world that it literally 
could ignite a worldwide conflict big enough to be called World War 
III. Nuclear exchanges are perhaps even more likely to occur under the 
conditions of an expanded Middle East war than they were at the height 
of the Cold War, when the Soviets and U.S. had literally thousands of 
nuclear weapons pointed at each other. If we carry out our threats to 
invade and occupy Iraq, especially if we do so unilaterally, the odds 
are at least 50-50 that this worst case scenario will result.
  The best-case scenario would be a short war, limited to weeks and 
involving few American and Iraqi civilian casualties. This, in 
combination with a unified Iraqi welcome, the placing into power of a 
stable popular government that is long lasting, contributing to 
regional stability and prosperity, and free elections, just is what our 
planners are hoping for. The odds of achieving this miraculous result 
are probably one in 10,000.
  More likely, the consequences will be severe and surprising and not 
what anyone planned for or intended. It will likely fall somewhere 
between the two extremes, but closer to the worst scenario than the 
best.
  There are numerous other possible consequences. Here are a few worth 
contemplating:
  No local Iraqi or regional Arab support materializes. Instead of a 
spontaneous uprising as is hope, the opposite occurs. The Iraqi 
citizens anxious to get rid of Hussien join in his defense, believing 
foreign occupation and control of their oil is far worse than living 
under the current dictator. Already we see that sanctions have done 
precisely that. Instead of blaming Saddam Hussien and his dictatorial 
regime for the suffering of the past decade, the Iraqi people blame the 
U.S.-led sanctions and the constant bombing by the U.S. and British. 
Hussien has increased his power and the people have suffered from the 
war against Iraq since 1991. There are a lot of reasons to believe this 
same reaction will occur with an escalation of our military attacks. 
Training dissidents like the Iraqi National Congress will prove no more 
reliable than the training and the military assistance we provided in 
the 70's and the 80's for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussien when they 
qualified as U.S. ``allies.''
  Pre-emptive war against Iraq may well prompt traditional enemies in 
the regions to create new alliances, as the hatred for America comes to 
exceed age-old hatreds that caused regional conflicts. Iraq already has 
made overtures and concessions to Iran and Kuwait, with some signs of 
conciliation being shown by both sides. Total domination of the entire 
Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions by the U.S. will surely stir 
survival instincts in these countries as well as in Russia. As the 
balance of power continues to shift in the U.S.'s favor, there will be 
even more reasons for countries like China and Pakistan to secretly 
support the nations that are being subjected to U.S. domination in the 
region. The U.S. will never have a free ride in its effort to control 
the entire world's oil supply. Antagonisms are bound to build, and our 
ability to finance the multiple military conflicts that are bound to 
come is self-limited.
  The Kurds may jump at the chance, if chaos ensues, to fulfill their 
dream of an independent Kurdish homeland. This, of course, will stir 
ire of the Turks and the Iranians. Instead of stability for northern 
Iraq, the war likely will precipitate more fighting than the war 
planners ever imagined. Delivering Kurdish Iraq to Turkey as a prize 
for its cooperation with our war plans will not occur without a heated 
and deadly struggle. Turkey is already deeply concerned about the 
prospect for Kurdish independence, and only remains loyal to America 
because U.S. taxpayers are forced to subsidize an already depressed 
Turkish economy caused by our Iraqi policies. More money will pacify 
for a while, but either frustration with the perpetual nature of the 
problem or our inability to continue the financial bailout will lead 
Turkey to have second thoughts about its obedience to our demands to 
wage war from their country. All of this raises the odds that Islamic 
radicals will once more take control of the Turkish government. These 
developing conditions increase the odds of civil strife erupting in 
Turkey.
  Islamic fundamentalism in the entire region will get a shot in the 
arm once the invasion of Iraq begins, especially in Saudi Arabia, 
Yemen, and Turkey. Our placing the Shah in power in Iran in the 1950's 
was a major reason that the Ayatollah eventually made it to power in 
the late 1970's--a delayed but nevertheless direct consequence of our 
policy. Balance of power in this area of the world has always been 
delicate, and outside interference serves only to destabilize. There's 
no evidence that our current efforts will lead to more stability. 
Promoting democracy, as it's said we're doing, is a farce. If elections 
were to occur in most of the Arab countries today, Osama bin Laden and 
his key allies would win. Besides, it seems we adapt quite well to 
working with military dictators that have ousted elected leaders, as we 
do in Pakistan by rewarding their cooperation with huge subsidies and 
future promises.
  In the chaos that may erupt, several countries might see an 
opportunity to move on their neighbors. Already we have been warned 
that cooperation from Russia means no American criticism or resistance 
to its moves in Georgia or Chechnya. China could attack Taiwan. North 
Korea could renew its struggle against South Korea. India may see this 
as an opportunity to settle the Kasmir dispute with Pakistan--with the 
real risk of nuclear war breaking out. It seems the obsession about 
Iraq's improbable possession of nuclear weapons far exceeds the more 
realistic possibility that our pre-emptive strike against Iraq may 
precipitate a nuclear exchange between these two countries, or even a 
first strike with nuclear weapons by Israel against Iraq.
  Expect Israel to use the chaos to further promote their occupation 
and settlements in the Palestinian homeland and possibly even in 
Lebanon. Israel's possession of nuclear weapons in a period of outright 
war will surely serve to intimidate her neighbors and intensify her 
efforts to further expand the Israeli homeland.
  If massive Iraqi civilian casualties result, as indeed is possible 
though not deliberate, expect more worldwide condemnation and even a 
U.N. resolution condemning what others will call American War Crimes. 
Our refusal to be subject to the International Criminal Court, while 
demanding others be tried in the court, will never sit well with the 
world community. Our position is a far cry from what it ought to be--
demanding national sovereignty while promoting neutrality and 
friendship with all nations.
  Our own CIA has warned that war with Iraq will more likely cause 
Saddam Hussien to use

[[Page 22803]]

any massively lethal weapons that he might have than if we don't attack 
him. Also, they warned that the likelihood of al Qaeda attacks on our 
own soil will increase once an invasion begins. This, of course, could 
a wave of well-placed snipers around the United States.
  It is now admitted that over 150,000 U.S. servicemen are suffering 
from Persian Gulf War Syndrome as a result of the first Persian Gulf 
War. Our government would like to ignore this fact, but a new war 
literally could create an epidemic of casualties of the same sort, 
since the exact etiology is not completely understood. The number of 
deaths and injuries that might occur from an occupation of Iraq is 
unknown, but conceivably could be much higher than anyone wants to 
imagine.
  Anti Americanism now seeping the world will significantly increase 
once we launch our attack. Already we have seen elections swayed in 
Europe, Turkey, and Pakistan by those unfriendly to the United States. 
The attitude that the world's ``King of the Hill'' must be brought down 
will escalate, especially if the war goes poorly and does not end 
quickly with minimal civilian deaths.
  Al Qaeda likely will get a real boost in membership once the war 
breaks out. Membership is already pervasive throughout the world 
without any centralized control. We should expect this to continue, 
with an explosion in membership and a negative impact around the world. 
Our attack will confirm to the doubters that bin Laden was right in 
assessing our desire to control the Middle Eastern resources and 
dictate policy to the entire region while giving support to Israel over 
the Palestinians.
  Our very weak economy could easily collapse with the additional 
burden of a costly war. War is never a way to make the people of a 
country better off. It does not end recessions, and is much more likely 
to cause one or make one much worse. A significant war will cause 
revenues to decrease, taxes to increase, inflation to jump, encourage 
trade wars, and balloon the deficit. Oil prices will soar and the 
dollar will retreat ever further.
  Already we're hearing demands for a military draft to be instituted 
for both men and women. I see that coming, and it will serve as another 
source of domestic friction as our economy deteriorates and 
unemployment rises. Under these conditions the standard of living for 
all Americans is destined to go down.
  This war, if of any significant duration, in time will be seen as a 
Republican war plain and simple. Along with a weak economy, it could 
easily usher in a ``regime change'' here in the United states. The 
conditions may justify a change in leadership, but the return of 
control to the opposition party will allow them to use the opportunity 
to promote their domestic liberal agenda and socialize the entire 
economy.
  The net result, regardless of the size and duration of the coming 
war, will be that the people of the United States will be less free and 
much poorer. The bigger the war, the greater will be the suffering.

                          ____________________