Tweet
Transcript
A Big Mistake: by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Before the US House of Representatives, January 26, 2005
America?s policy of foreign intervention, while still debated in the
early 20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both
political parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake,
a major error in judgment? Not just 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? 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? 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
Washington?s admonition to avoid entangling alliances is sound advice
even today?
In medicine mistakes are made ? man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are made,
incorrect treatments are given, and experimental trials of medicines are
advocated. A good physician understands the imperfections in medical
care, advises close follow-ups, and double-checks the diagnosis,
treatment, and medication. Adjustments are made to ensure the best
results. 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 you, the results would not be good. Litigation and the loss of
reputation in the medical community place restraints on this type of
bullheaded behavior.
Sadly, though, when governments, politicians, and bureaucrats make
mistakes and refuse to reexamine them, there is little the 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!
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.
Economic laws ultimately prevail over bad judgment. But tragically, the
greater the wealth of a country, the longer the flawed policy lasts.
We?ll probably not be any different.
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 deficits. Rest
assured, though, the limitations of our endless foreign adventurism and
spending will become apparent to everyone at some point in time.
Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into efforts ostensibly
designed to make us safer. Many laws have been passed and many dollars
have been spent. Whether or not we?re better off is another question.
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. 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?ve
created the Department of Homeland Security, passed the Patriot Act, and
created a new super CIA agency.
Our government now is permitted to monitor the Internet, to read our
mail, to 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 driving
licenses and welfare benefits with little restraint.
These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us
as the authoritarianism we accept at the airport. The creation of the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 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. 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?s frightening to see us doing to ourselves what
even bin Laden never dreamed he could accomplish with his suicide
bombers.
We don?t 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. 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.
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?s 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.
All too often government acts perversely, professing to advance liberty
while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed since 9/11
promise to protect our freedoms and our security. 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 the foreign policy that incites those who declared war against us, no
amount of pat-downs at airports will suffice. Imagine the harm done, the
staggering costs, and the loss of liberty if the next 20 years pass and
airplanes are never 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 all more obedient and complacent toward government
intrusions into our lives.
The airport mess has been compounded by other problems, which we fail to
recognize. Most assume the 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 upon the government.
After 9/11 we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total government
control and a political takeover by the TSA ? which was completely
contrary to the proposition that private owners have the ultimate
responsibility to protect their customers.
Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fuel the
Transportation Secretary?s near obsession with avoiding the appearance of
discrimination toward young Muslim males. Instead TSA seemingly targets
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 anti-discrimination laws.
Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination, such as
that which led to 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.
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. Airlines, on the other
hand, should be permitted to do whatever is necessary to provide safety.
Private firms ? long denied the 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.
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 airlines are used for
forced sensitivity training of pilots who do their very best, under the
circumstances, to make flying safer by restricting the travel of some
individuals. We have embarked on a process that serves no logical
purpose. While airline safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished and
costs skyrocket.
If we?re willing to consider a different foreign policy, we should ask
ourselves a few questions:
What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances,
policing the world, nation building, and spreading our values through
force are deeply flawed?
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?
What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to
enhance our national security?
What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of
our client oil states in the region?
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%
of our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?
What if it turns out there are many more guerrilla fighters in Iraq than
our government admits?
What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some
claim, and what is an acceptable price for ?doing good??
What if 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?
What if we discover that, when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of
Iraqis support Islamic (Sharia) law over western secular law, and want
our troops removed?
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?
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?
What if it turns out radical Muslims don?t hate us for our freedoms, but
rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs
and Muslims?
What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from
pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden?
What if we discover that democracy can?t be spread with force of arms?
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?
What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and
occupation of Arab/Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us,
and it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?
What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to
terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?
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?
What if the argument that by fighting over there, we won?t have to fight
here, is wrong, and the opposite is true?
What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?
What if the principle of pre-emptive war is adopted by Russia, China,
Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, ?justified? by current U.S. policy?
What if pre-emptive war and pre-emptive guilt stem from the same flawed
policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?
What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally, and turns on us when
conditions deteriorate?
What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions
that would be used to justify a military response and pre-emptive war
against them?
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?
What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is
deeply flawed?
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?
What if we discover the army is too small to continue policies of
pre-emption and nation-building? What if a military draft is the only way
to mobilize enough troops?
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 it actually is a backdoor 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 leadership running the war?
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?
What if the intelligence reform legislation ? which gives us bigger, more
expensive bureaucracy ? doesn?t bolster our security, and distracts us
from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?
What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors, and we are losing an
unwinnable guerrilla war?
What if we discover, too late, that we can?t afford this war ? and that
our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high
interest rates, and a severe economic downturn?
Why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the #1
function of the federal government ? to provide for national security ?
has been severely undermined. On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14 aircraft
in place 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. 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.
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 with both bin Laden
and Hussein in the 1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s.And it?s safe to
say we have used billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the last 50 years
pursuing this contradictory, irrational, foolish, costly, and very
dangerous foreign policy.
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.
I hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to these
concerns. If I?m completely wrong in my criticisms, nothing is lost
except my time and energy expended in efforts to get others to reconsider
our foreign policy.
But the bigger question is:
What if I?m 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?
For that a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security - Benjamin Franklin
A Big Mistake: by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Before the US House of Representatives, January 26, 2005
America?s policy of foreign intervention, while still debated in the
early 20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both
political parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake,
a major error in judgment? Not just 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? 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? 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
Washington?s admonition to avoid entangling alliances is sound advice
even today?
In medicine mistakes are made ? man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are made,
incorrect treatments are given, and experimental trials of medicines are
advocated. A good physician understands the imperfections in medical
care, advises close follow-ups, and double-checks the diagnosis,
treatment, and medication. Adjustments are made to ensure the best
results. 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 you, the results would not be good. Litigation and the loss of
reputation in the medical community place restraints on this type of
bullheaded behavior.
Sadly, though, when governments, politicians, and bureaucrats make
mistakes and refuse to reexamine them, there is little the 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!
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.
Economic laws ultimately prevail over bad judgment. But tragically, the
greater the wealth of a country, the longer the flawed policy lasts.
We?ll probably not be any different.
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 deficits. Rest
assured, though, the limitations of our endless foreign adventurism and
spending will become apparent to everyone at some point in time.
Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into efforts ostensibly
designed to make us safer. Many laws have been passed and many dollars
have been spent. Whether or not we?re better off is another question.
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. 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?ve
created the Department of Homeland Security, passed the Patriot Act, and
created a new super CIA agency.
Our government now is permitted to monitor the Internet, to read our
mail, to 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 driving
licenses and welfare benefits with little restraint.
These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us
as the authoritarianism we accept at the airport. The creation of the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 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. 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?s frightening to see us doing to ourselves what
even bin Laden never dreamed he could accomplish with his suicide
bombers.
We don?t 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. 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.
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?s 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.
All too often government acts perversely, professing to advance liberty
while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed since 9/11
promise to protect our freedoms and our security. 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 the foreign policy that incites those who declared war against us, no
amount of pat-downs at airports will suffice. Imagine the harm done, the
staggering costs, and the loss of liberty if the next 20 years pass and
airplanes are never 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 all more obedient and complacent toward government
intrusions into our lives.
The airport mess has been compounded by other problems, which we fail to
recognize. Most assume the 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 upon the government.
After 9/11 we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total government
control and a political takeover by the TSA ? which was completely
contrary to the proposition that private owners have the ultimate
responsibility to protect their customers.
Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fuel the
Transportation Secretary?s near obsession with avoiding the appearance of
discrimination toward young Muslim males. Instead TSA seemingly targets
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 anti-discrimination laws.
Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination, such as
that which led to 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.
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. Airlines, on the other
hand, should be permitted to do whatever is necessary to provide safety.
Private firms ? long denied the 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.
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 airlines are used for
forced sensitivity training of pilots who do their very best, under the
circumstances, to make flying safer by restricting the travel of some
individuals. We have embarked on a process that serves no logical
purpose. While airline safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished and
costs skyrocket.
If we?re willing to consider a different foreign policy, we should ask
ourselves a few questions:
What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances,
policing the world, nation building, and spreading our values through
force are deeply flawed?
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?
What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to
enhance our national security?
What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of
our client oil states in the region?
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%
of our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?
What if it turns out there are many more guerrilla fighters in Iraq than
our government admits?
What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some
claim, and what is an acceptable price for ?doing good??
What if 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?
What if we discover that, when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of
Iraqis support Islamic (Sharia) law over western secular law, and want
our troops removed?
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?
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?
What if it turns out radical Muslims don?t hate us for our freedoms, but
rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs
and Muslims?
What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from
pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden?
What if we discover that democracy can?t be spread with force of arms?
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?
What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and
occupation of Arab/Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us,
and it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?
What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to
terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?
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?
What if the argument that by fighting over there, we won?t have to fight
here, is wrong, and the opposite is true?
What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?
What if the principle of pre-emptive war is adopted by Russia, China,
Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, ?justified? by current U.S. policy?
What if pre-emptive war and pre-emptive guilt stem from the same flawed
policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?
What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally, and turns on us when
conditions deteriorate?
What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions
that would be used to justify a military response and pre-emptive war
against them?
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?
What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is
deeply flawed?
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?
What if we discover the army is too small to continue policies of
pre-emption and nation-building? What if a military draft is the only way
to mobilize enough troops?
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 it actually is a backdoor 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 leadership running the war?
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?
What if the intelligence reform legislation ? which gives us bigger, more
expensive bureaucracy ? doesn?t bolster our security, and distracts us
from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?
What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors, and we are losing an
unwinnable guerrilla war?
What if we discover, too late, that we can?t afford this war ? and that
our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high
interest rates, and a severe economic downturn?
Why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the #1
function of the federal government ? to provide for national security ?
has been severely undermined. On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14 aircraft
in place 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. 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.
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 with both bin Laden
and Hussein in the 1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s.And it?s safe to
say we have used billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the last 50 years
pursuing this contradictory, irrational, foolish, costly, and very
dangerous foreign policy.
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.
I hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to these
concerns. If I?m completely wrong in my criticisms, nothing is lost
except my time and energy expended in efforts to get others to reconsider
our foreign policy.
But the bigger question is:
What if I?m 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?
For that a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security - Benjamin Franklin
Comment