[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[House]
[Page 15030]
[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, I would like to discuss the irrationality of 
our current foreign policy and the expected concrete benefits of 
changing that policy.
  First, we need to look at the inconsistent and counterproductive way 
we currently treat other nations. We reward and respect nations with 
nuclear weapons. Look at how we treat Russia, China, Pakistan, India 
and North Korea. Our policies serve as an incentive for rogue nations 
to achieve a nuclear capability. Saddam Hussein was so convinced of 
this that he pretended he was on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon. 
Iran is now doing the same thing, yet our CIA assures us they have 
quite a ways to go before they have a nuclear capability.
  Without our ``remaking'' the Middle East, Iran would have less 
incentive to develop a weapon. And under the NPT, Iran has a right to 
pursue peaceful use of nuclear power.
  The foolishness of our foreign policy has us spending money in 
Pakistan, a military dictatorship with nuclear weapons, which is 
harboring Osama Bin Laden. The irony that taxpayers are paying to help 
protect Osama Bin Laden is astounding. For all the so-called reasons we 
threaten Iran, the same logic could apply to Pakistan many fold and, 
for that matter, even to Saudi Arabia, from where 15 of the 19 
hijackers came.
  A changed policy in the region would greatly diffuse the boiling 
conflict now brewing with Iran. Just an announcement, if they believed 
us, of a move toward diplomacy and plans to move our troops and Navy 
out of this region may well lead to a sharp drop in oil prices.
  But credibility is the key. If no one believes we're sincere in 
altering our foreign policy of militarism to that of peaceful 
relationships with all who desire it, it won't work.
  Credibility would depend on us discontinuing building permanent bases 
in Iraq. We don't need a single base in the entire Middle East to 
protect U.S. security. Having bases there only jeopardizes our 
security.
  The embassy we're building in Iraq, the largest in the world, a 
virtual fortress, nearly the size of the Vatican, should be donated to 
some Iraqi organization that might make good use of it. A small office 
with a few personnel would send a signal of our intent not to rule the 
Middle East for decades to come.
  The economic benefits of a foreign policy of nonintervention are 
extraordinary. The wars that result from meddling in the internal 
affairs of other nations cause much greater economic harm than most 
people imagine. The cliche that war is a stimulus to economic growth is 
blatantly false.
  The billions of dollars saved just in the last decade if we weren't 
in the Middle East could have been spent here at home improving the 
conditions of all Americans, or would have prevented our huge national 
and foreign debt from exploding to historic records.
  Inflation, though denied by our government as being a serious 
problem, would be greatly reduced. We shouldn't forget, the big 
inflation of prices from our spendthrift ways for this war is yet to 
come.
  Without a war going on in the Middle East, we can rebuild our Armed 
Forces, now run down from this prolonged war. This would certainly help 
the National Guard and our Reserves to rebuild and re-equip.
  It's estimated that 90 percent of our Army and National Guard is 
poorly equipped. A new policy would return our National Guard to the 
States to be available when an emergency comes, no longer leaving the 
States high and dry because these troops are in Iraq.
  Some of these dollars saved and personnel brought home could be 
redirected toward border protection here in this country. The border 
guards sent off to Iraq to train Iraqis in border control could return 
to their proper function here in the United States.
  The constant and growing dissent here in the United States over the 
war would disappear. Though not as bad as in the 1960s, it's a growing 
problem that can't be ignored.
  The threat of terrorism would be greatly reduced, as the evidence is 
overwhelming that our foreign policy of intervention, occupation, 
bombing and sanctions is the main incentive for radical insurgents to 
commit suicide terrorism.
  Those who misled us into the war in Iraq continually claim that, yes, 
that's true. Mistakes were made. But now the reason we must stay is to 
clean up the mess we created, while never admitting that the mess gets 
worse and the costs go up the longer we stay.
  The time has come for a change. A message that our diplomatic doors 
are open and the preemptive war option is off the table would be a 
powerful message of peace and hope, not only to the Middle East but to 
the entire world.
  The nay-saying warmongers who preach inevitable and long-lasting 
conflicts must be marginalized. The time for change is now.

                          ____________________