[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[House]
[Page 22713]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               COMING HOME MAKES SENSE, STAYING DOES NOT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, coming home makes sense; staying does not.
  Supporters of the war in Iraq, as well as some nonsupporters, warn of 
the dangers if we leave. But is it not quite possible that these 
dangers are simply a consequence of having gone into Iraq in the first 
place, rather than a consequence of leaving?

                              {time}  1545

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

                          ____________________