|
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 6
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
... Cached
Congressional Record [.PDF]
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:1
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:2
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:3
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:4
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:5
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:6
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:7
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:8
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:9
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:10
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:11
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:12
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:13
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:14
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:15
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:16
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:17
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:18
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:19
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 patdowns
at airports will suffice.
2005 Ron Paul 6:20
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:21
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:22
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:23
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:24
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
on airplanes. The Federal Government
should not be involved in local law enforcement
and has no right to discriminate.
2005 Ron Paul 6:25
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:26
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:27
We have embarked on a process that serves no logical purpose. While airline
safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished,
and costs skyrocket.
2005 Ron Paul 6:28
Mr. Speaker, if we are willing to consider a different foreign policy, we
should ask ourselves a few questions:
2005 Ron Paul 6:29
What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, policing
the world, nation-building, and spreading
our values through force are deeply
flawed?
2005 Ron Paul 6:30
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:31
What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to enhance
our national security?
2005 Ron Paul 6:32
What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of
our client oil states in that region?
2005 Ron Paul 6:33
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:34
What if it turns out there are many more guerilla fighters in Iraq than our
government admits?
2005 Ron Paul 6:35
What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some
claim; and what is an acceptable price
for doing good?
2005 Ron Paul 6:36
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:37
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:38
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:39
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:40
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:41
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:42
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:43
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:44
What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to
terrorists
and guerilla attacks both at
home and abroad?
2005 Ron Paul 6:45
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:46
What if the argument that by fighting over there we will not have to fight
here is wrong, and the opposite is true?
2005 Ron Paul 6:47
What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?
2005 Ron Paul 6:48
What if the principle of preemptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel,
India, Pakistan, and others, and justified
by current U.S. policy?
2005 Ron Paul 6:49
What if preemptive war and preemptive guilt stem from the same flawed
policy of authoritarianism, though we
fail to recognize it?
2005 Ron Paul 6:50
What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally and turns on us when conditions
deteriorate?
2005 Ron Paul 6:51
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:52
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:53
What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is
deeply flawed?
2005 Ron Paul 6:54
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:55
What if we discover the Army is too small to continue policies of preemption
and nation-building?
2005 Ron Paul 6:56
What if a military draft is the only way to mobilize enough troops?
2005 Ron Paul 6:57
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:58
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:59
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:60
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:61
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:62
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:63
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:64
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
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:65
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:66
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.
2005 Ron Paul 6:67
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?
2005 Ron Paul 6:68
For that, a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?
| |
