[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14730-14731]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               UNANTICIPATED GOOD RESULTS (WHEN WE LEAVE)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, good intentions frequently lead to unintended 
bad consequences. Tough choices, doing what is right, often leads to 
unanticipated good results.
  The growing demand by the American people for us to leave Iraq 
prompts the naysayers to predict disaster in the Middle East if we do. 
Of course, these merchants of fear are the same ones who predicted 
invading and occupying Iraq would be a slam-dunk operation, that we 
would be welcomed as liberators and oil revenues would pay the bills 
with minimum loss of American lives. All this hyperbole, while ignoring 
the precise warnings by our intelligence community of the great 
difficulties that would lie ahead.
  The chaos that this pre-emptive undeclared war has created in Iraq 
has allowed the al Qaeda to establish a foothold in Iraq and the 
strategic interests of Iran to be served. The unintended consequences 
have been numerous. A well-intentioned but flawed policy that ignored 
credible warnings of how things could go awry has produced conditions 
that have led to a war dominated by procrastination without victory or 
resolution in sight.
  Those who want a total military victory, which no one has yet 
defined, don't have the troops, the money, the equipment, or the 
support of a large majority of the American people to do so. Those in 
Congress who have heard the cry of the electorate to end the war refuse 
to do so out of fear the demagogues will challenge their patriotism and 
their support for the troops. So nothing happens except more of the 
same. The result is continued stalemate with the current policy and the 
daily sacrifice of American lives.
  This wait-and-see attitude and a promised reassessment of events in 
Iraq late this summer strongly motivates the insurgents to accelerate 
the killing of Americans to influence the coming decision in 3 months. 
In contrast, a clear decision to leave would

[[Page 14731]]

prompt a wait-and-see attitude, a de facto cease fire, in anticipation 
of our leaving; a perfect time for Iraqi factions to hold their fire on 
each and on our troops and just possibly start talking with each other.
  Most Americans do not anticipate a military victory in Iraq, yet the 
Washington politicians remain frozen in their unwillingness to change 
our policy there, fearful of the dire predictions that conditions can 
only get worse if they leave. They refuse to admit the conditions of 
foreign occupation is the key ingredient that unleashed the civil war 
now raging in Iraq and serves as a recruiting device for al Qaeda. It 
is time for a change in American foreign policy.
  But what if those who were so wrong in their predictions as to the 
outcome of their invasion are equally wrong about what might happen if 
we leave? Unanticipated good results may well occur. There is room for 
optimism. The naysayers have been wrong before and are probably going 
to be wrong again.
  The truth is, no one knows exactly what would happen if we leave. 
Civil strife may last for a while longer, but one thing is certain, no 
longer will American lives be lost. That in itself would be a blessing 
and reason enough for doing so.
  After we left Vietnam under dire circumstances, chaos continued, but 
no more American lives were lost. But, subsequently, we and the 
Vietnamese have achieved in peace what could not be achieved in war. We 
now are friends. We trade with each other, and we invest in Vietnam. 
The result proves the sound advice of the Founders: Trade in friendship 
with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Example and 
persuasion is far superior to force of arms for promoting America's 
goodness.
  It is claimed that we cannot leave until a new military faction is 
trained to fill the vacuum. But the question is, will there really be a 
vacuum, or are we talking about our proxy army being trained well 
enough to continue to do battle with the very strong militias already 
in place? Lack of training for the local militias has never been a 
problem for them.
  The real problem with our plans to train a faction of Iraqis to carry 
out our plans for the Middle East is that the majority of Iraqis object 
and the army trainees are not as motivated as are the members of the 
various militias. The Kurds have a militia capable of maintaining order 
in their region. Sadr has a huge militia that is anxious to restore 
order and have us gone. The Badr brigade is trained to defend its 
interests. And the Sunnis are armed and determined. Our presence only 
serves to stir the pot by our troops being a target of nearly all the 
groups who are positioning themselves for our anticipated departure.
  After we leave, just maybe the Shiites and the Sunnis will develop an 
alliance based on nationalism. They already talk of this possibility, 
and it could include the Badr brigade and the Sadr militias. A 
coalition like this could serve as an efficient deterrent to al Qaeda 
and Iran since they all share this goal.
  Al Qaeda and Iran were not influential in Iraq before the invasion 
and would not be welcomed after we leave. There is cooperation now, 
motivated by the shared desire of the Sunnis and the Shiites to oppose 
our occupation. There's definitely a potential that the Iraqis may do 
much better in dealing with their own problems than anyone can imagine 
once we leave. Already there are developing coalitions of Sunni and 
Shiites in the Iraqi parliament that seek this resolve.
  It is claimed by some that leaving the Middle East would not serve 
the interests of Israel. Israel with its nuclear arsenal is quite 
capable of defending itself under all circumstances. Its dependency on 
us frequently prevents it from taking action that otherwise may be in 
its best interests because we do not approve of such actions. Israel's 
overtures to Syria and other neighbors would not be road blocked by 
U.S. policy if we left the Middle East. With us gone Israel would have 
greater motivation to talk with other Arab countries as they did with 
Egypt. It just may be that Israel would accept the overtures made by 
the Arab League for a comprehensive peace. The Arab League might be an 
acceptable alternative to the U.S. influencing policy in the region.
  We're told we can't let this happen or we'll lose control of the oil 
and gasoline prices will soar--exactly what has happened with our 
invasion. And if the neo-conservatives have their way there will be an 
attack on Iran. If that occurs, then watch what happens to the price of 
oil.
  No matter who ends up controlling the oil they will always have a 
need for western markets. Instead of oil prices soaring with our 
leaving, production may go up and prices fall A change in our foreign 
policy is overdue.

                          ____________________