[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 832-835]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY OF INTERVENTION

  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, what if it was all a big mistake? America's 
foreign policy of intervention, while still debated in the early 20th 
century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both political 
parties.
  But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error 
in judgment? Not just a bad judgment regarding when and where to impose 
ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moral right to meddle 
in the affairs of others?
  Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting, hundreds of 
thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of foreign 
civilian casualties and unbelievable human and economic costs. What if 
it was all needlessly borne by the American people?

[[Page 833]]

  If we do conclude that grave foreign policy errors have been made, a 
very serious question must be asked: What would it take to change our 
policy to one more compatible with a true republic's goal of peace, 
commerce and friendship with all nations? Is it not possible that 
George Washington's admonition to avoid entangling alliances is sound 
advice even today?
  As a physician, I would like to draw an analogy. In medicine, 
mistakes are made. Man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are made, incorrect 
treatments are given, and experimental trials of medicine are 
advocated. A good physician understands the imperfections in medical 
care, advises close follow-ups and double-checks the diagnoses, 
treatment and medication. Adjustments are made to assure the best 
results.
  But what if a doctor never checks the success or failure of a 
treatment or ignores bad results and assumes his omnipotence, refusing 
to concede that the initial course of treatment was a mistake? Let me 
assure my colleagues the results would not be good. Litigation and the 
loss of reputation in the medical community place restraints on this 
type of bull-headed behavior.
  Sadly, though, when governments, politicians and bureaucrats make 
mistakes and refuse to examine them, there is little that victims can 
do to correct things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propaganda 
machine are instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, the 
final truth emerges slowly and only after much suffering. The arrogance 
of some politicians, regulators, and diplomats actually causes them to 
become even more aggressive and more determined to prove themselves 
right, to prove their power is not to be messed with by never admitting 
a mistake. Truly, power corrupts.
  The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreign 
intervention, despite obvious failures and shortcomings over the last 
50 years, has brought great harm to our country and our liberty. 
Historically, financial realities are the ultimate check on nations 
bent on empire-building.
  Economic laws ultimately prevail over bad judgment, but tragically, 
the greater the wealth of the country, the longer the flawed policy 
lasts. We will probably not be any different.
  We are still a wealthy Nation and our currency is still trusted by 
the world. Yet we are vulnerable to some harsh realities about our true 
wealth and the burden of our future commitments. Overwhelming debt and 
the precarious nature of the dollar should serve to restrain our 
determined leaders. Yet they show little concern for our deficits. Rest 
assured, though, the limitations of our endless foreign adventurism and 
spending will become apparent to everyone at some point in time.
  Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into efforts 
ostensibly designed to make us safer. Many laws have been passed. Many 
dollars have been spent. Whether or not we are better off is another 
question.
  Today, we occupy two countries in the Middle East. We have suffered 
over 20,000 casualties and caused possibly 100,000 civilian casualties 
in Iraq.

                              {time}  1415

  We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as 
hundreds of billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer. We 
have created the Department of Homeland Security, passed the PATRIOT 
Act, and created a new super CIA agency. Our government is now 
permitted to monitor the Internet, read our mail, search us without 
proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card, and to 
investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal 
aliens flow into our country and qualify for driver's licenses and 
welfare benefits with little restraint.
  These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to 
us as the authoritarianism we accept at the airports. The creation of 
the Transportation Security Administration has intruded on the privacy 
of all airline travelers, and there is little evidence that we are 
safer for it. Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old 
temptation to sacrifice liberty on the pretense of obtaining security.
  Love of security, unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of 
liberty. Unchecked fear of another 9/11-type attack constantly 
preoccupies our leaders and most of our citizens and drives the 
legislative attack on our civil liberties. It is frightening to see us 
doing to ourselves what even bin Laden never dreamed he could 
accomplish with his suicide bombers.
  We do not understand the difference between a vague threat of 
terrorism and the danger of a guerilla war. One prompts us to expand 
and nationalize domestic law enforcement while limiting the freedoms of 
all Americans. The other deals with understanding terrorists like bin 
Laden who declared war against us in 1998. Not understanding the 
difference makes it virtually impossible to deal with the real threats.
  We are obsessed with passing new laws to make our country safe from a 
terrorist attack. This confusion about the cause of the 9/11 attacks, 
the fear they engendered, and the willingness to sacrifice liberty 
prompts many to declare their satisfaction with the inconveniences and 
even humiliation at our Nation's airports.
  There are always those in government who are anxious to increase its 
power and authority over the people. Strict adherence to personal 
privacy annoys those who promote a centralized state. It is no surprise 
to learn that many of the new laws passed in the aftermath of 9/11 had 
been proposed long before that date. The attacks merely provided an 
excuse to do many things previously proposed by dedicated statists.
  All too often government acts perversely, promising to advance 
liberty while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed 
since 9/11 promise to protect our freedoms and our securities. In time 
we will realize there is little chance our security will be enhanced or 
our liberties protected. The powerful and intrusive TSA certainly will 
not solve our problems. Without a full discussion, greater 
understanding, and ultimately a change in our foreign policy that 
incites those who declare war against us, no amount of pat-downs at 
airports will suffice.
  Imagine the harm done, the staggering costs and the loss of liberty 
if in the next 20 years airplanes are never again employed by 
terrorists. Even if there is a possibility that airplanes will be used 
to terrorize us, TSA's bullying will do little to prevent it. Patting 
down old women and little kids in airports cannot possibly make us 
safer. TSA cannot protect us from another attack, and it is not the 
solution. It serves only to make us more obedient and complacent toward 
government intrusion in our lives.
  The airplane mess has been compounded by other problems which we fail 
to recognize. Most assume that government has the greatest 
responsibility for making private aircraft travel safe. But this 
assumption only ignores mistakes made before 9/11, when the government 
taught us to not resist, taught us that airline personnel could not 
carry guns, and that the government would be in charge of security. 
Airline owners became complacent and dependent on the government.
  After 9/11, we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total 
government control and political takeover of the TSA, which was 
completely contrary to the proposition that private owners have the 
ultimate responsibility to protect their customers.
  Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fueled 
the Transportation Secretary's near obsession with avoiding the 
appearance of discriminating against young Muslim males. Instead, TSA 
seemingly targeted white children and old women. We have failed to 
recognize that a safety policy by a private airline is quite a 
different thing from government agents blindly obeying 
antidiscrimination laws.
  Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination such as 
that which led to the incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War 
II. However, local law enforcement agencies should be able to target 
their searches if the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race 
or religion. But we are dealing with an entirely different matter when 
it comes to safety

[[Page 834]]

on airplanes. The Federal Government should not be involved in local 
law enforcement and has no right to discriminate.
  Airlines, on the other hand, should be permitted to do whatever is 
necessary to provide safety. Private firms, long denied this right, 
should have a right to discriminate. Fine restaurants, for example, can 
require that shoes and shirts be worn for service in their 
establishments. The logic of this remaining property right should 
permit more sensible security checks at airports. The airlines should 
be responsible for the safety of their property and liable for it as 
well. This is not only the responsibility of the airlines, but it is a 
civil right that has long been denied them and other private companies.
  The present situation requires the government to punish some by 
targeting those individuals who clearly offer no threat. Any airline 
that tries to make travel safer and happens to question a larger number 
of young Muslim males than the government deems appropriate can be 
assessed huge fines. To add insult to injury, the fines collected from 
the airlines are used to force sensitivity training on pilots, who do 
their very best under the circumstances to make flying safer by 
restricting the travel of some individuals.
  We have embarked on a process that serves no logical purpose. While 
airline safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished, and costs 
skyrocket.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are willing to consider a different foreign 
policy, we should ask ourselves a few questions:
  What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, 
policing the world, nation-building, and spreading our values through 
force are deeply flawed?
  What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass 
destruction?
  What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never 
allies?
  What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing 
to enhance our national security?
  What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow 
of our client oil states in that region?
  What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 
American troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq 
war, and 9 percent of our forces already have been made incapable of 
returning to battle?
  What if it turns out there are many more guerilla fighters in Iraq 
than our government admits?
  What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as 
some claim; and what is an acceptable price for doing good?
  What if Secretary Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and 
things become worse under a defense secretary who demands more troops 
and an expansion of the war?
  What if we discover that when they do vote, the overwhelming majority 
of Iraqis support Islamic law over Western secular law and want our 
troops removed?
  What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in 
Iraq are never asked for their opinion of what should be done now?
  What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into 
three separate regions, recognizing the principle of self-determination 
while rejecting the artificial boundaries created in 1918 by non-
Iraqis?
  What if it turns out radical Muslims do not hate us for our freedoms, 
but rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected 
Arabs and Muslims?
  What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from 
pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden?
  What if we discover that democracy cannot be spread with force of 
arms?
  What if democracy is deeply flawed and, instead, we should be talking 
about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, 
localized government, weak centralized government, and self-
determination promoted through persuasion, not force?
  What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion 
and occupation of an Arab-Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations 
against us, and it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?
  What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability 
to terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?
  What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, 
actually recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and 
their warnings were ignored or denied?
  What if the argument that by fighting over there we will not have to 
fight here is wrong, and the opposite is true?
  What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?
  What if the principle of preemptive war is adopted by Russia, China, 
Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, and justified by current U.S. 
policy?
  What if preemptive war and preemptive guilt stem from the same flawed 
policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?
  What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally and turns on us when 
conditions deteriorate?
  What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into 
actions that would be used to justify a military response and 
preemptive war against them?
  What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails and 
ends up fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret; an alliance 
not achieved even at the height of the Cold War?
  What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports 
is deeply flawed?
  What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial 
leads to the total undermining of constitutional protections for 
American citizens when arrested?
  What if we discover the Army is too small to continue policies of 
preemption and nation-building?
  What if a military draft is the only way to mobilize enough troops?
  What if the stop-loss program is actually an egregious violation of 
trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers; 
what if this is actually a back-door draft, leading to unbridled 
cynicism and rebellion against a voluntary army and generating support 
for a draft of both men and women? Will lying to troops lead to 
rebellion and anger toward the political leaderships running this war?
  What if the Pentagon's legal task force opinion that the President is 
not bound by international or Federal law regarding torture stands 
unchallenged and sets a precedent which ultimately harms Americans 
while totally disregarding the moral, practical, and legal arguments 
against such a policy?
  What if the intelligence reform legislation which gives us a bigger, 
more expensive bureaucracy does not bolster our security, distracts us 
from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?

                              {time}  1430

  What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors and we are losing 
an unwinnable guerilla war? What if we discover too late that we cannot 
afford this war, and that our policies have led to a dollar collapse, 
rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a severe economic downturn?
  Mr. Speaker, why do I believe these are such important questions? 
Because the number one function of the Federal Government is to provide 
for national security. And national security has been severely 
undermined.
  On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14 aircraft to protect the entire 
U.S. mainland, all of which proved useless that day. We have an annual 
DOD budget of over $400 billion, most of which is spent overseas in 
over 100 different countries.
  Tragically, on 9/11 our Air Force was better positioned to protect 
Seoul, Tokyo, Berlin and London than it was to protect Washington, D.C. 
and New York City. Moreover, our ill advised presence in the Middle 
East and our decade-long bombing of Iraq served only to incite the 
suicidal attacks of 
9/11.
  Before 9/11 our CIA ineptly pursued bin Laden, whom the Taliban was 
protecting. At the same time, the Taliban was receiving significant 
support from Pakistan, our trusted ally that received millions of 
dollars from the

[[Page 835]]

United States. We allied ourselves both with bin Laden and Hussein in 
the 1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s. And it is safe to say we 
have used billions of U.S. dollars in the last 50 years pursuing this 
contradictory, irrational, foolish, costly and very dangerous foreign 
policy.
  Policing the world, spreading democracy by force, nation-building and 
frequent bombing of countries that pose no threat to us, while leaving 
the homeland and our borders unprotected, result from a foreign policy 
that is contradictory and not in our self-interest.
  I can hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to my 
concerns. But if I am completely wrong in my criticism, nothing is lost 
except my time and energy expended in efforts to get others to 
reconsider our foreign policy.
  But the bigger question is, what if I am right, or even partially 
right, and we urgently need to change course in our foreign policy for 
the sake of our national and economic security, yet no one pays 
attention?
  For that, a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?

                          ____________________