WHAT IF (IT WAS ALL A BIG MISTAKE)?

[Guest guest]

Bush Faces New Skepticism from Republicans on Hill •

 

What If (It Was All a Big Mistake)?

By Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

t r u t h o u t | Statement

 

Wednesday 26 January 2005

 

Delivered to the U.S. House of Representatives.

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 assure 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?

 

 

 

----

----------

Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman from Texas.