[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 19797-19801]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 19798]]

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 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

[[Page 19799]]

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 of 
war. It is only when the costs become prohibitive and the war loses 
popular support that the media criticize the effort.

[[Page 19800]]

  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

[[Page 19801]]

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. 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.

                          ____________________