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 theearly 20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by bothpolitical parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake,a major error in judgment? Not just bad judgment regarding when andwhere to impose ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moralright to meddle in the affairs of others? Think of the untold harm doneby years of fighting - hundreds of thousands of American casualties,hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian casualties, and unbelievablehuman and economic costs. What if it was all needlessly borne by theAmerican people? If we do conclude that grave foreign policy errors havebeen made, a very serious question must be asked: What would it take tochange our policy to one more compatible with a true republic's goal ofpeace, commerce, and friendship with all nations? Is it not possiblethat Washington's admonition to avoid entangling alliances is soundadvice even today? In medicine mistakes are made - man is fallible. Misdiagnoses aremade, incorrect treatments are given, and experimental trials ofmedicines are advocated. A good physician understands the imperfectionsin medical care, advises close follow-ups, and double-checks thediagnosis, treatment, and medication. Adjustments are made to assure thebest results. But what if a doctor never checks the success or failureof 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 theloss of reputation in the medical community place restraints on thistype of bullheaded behavior. Sadly, though, when governments, politicians, and bureaucrats makemistakes and refuse to reexamine them, there is little the victims cando to correct things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propagandamachine are instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, thefinal truth emerges slowly, and only after much suffering. The arroganceof some politicians, regulators, and diplomats actually causes them tobecome even more aggressive and more determined to prove themselvesright, to prove their power is not to be messed with by never admittinga mistake. Truly, power corrupts! The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreignintervention, despite obvious failures and shortcomings over the last 50years, has brought great harm to our country and our liberty.Historically, financial realities are the ultimate check on nations benton empire. Economic laws ultimately prevail over bad judgment. Buttragically, the greater the wealth of a country, the longer the flawedpolicy lasts. We'll probably not be any different. We are still a wealthy nation, and our currency is still trusted bythe world, yet we are vulnerable to some harsh realities about our truewealth and the burden of our future commitments. Overwhelming debt andthe precarious nature of the dollar should serve to restrain ourdetermined leaders, yet they show little concern for deficits. Restassured, though, the limitations of our endless foreign adventurism andspending will become apparent to everyone at some point in time. Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into effortsostensibly designed to make us safer. Many laws have been passed andmany dollars have been spent. Whether or not we're better off is anotherquestion. Today we occupy two countries in the Middle East. We have sufferedover 20,000 casualties, and caused possibly 100,000 civilian casualtiesin Iraq. We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as wellas hundreds of billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer.We've created the Department of Homeland Security, passed the PatriotAct, and created a new super CIA agency. Our government now is permitted to monitor the Internet, to read ourmail, to search us without proper search warrants, to develop a nationalID card, and to investigate what people are reading in libraries.Ironically, illegal aliens flow into our country and qualify for drivinglicenses and welfare benefits with little restraint. These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visibleto us as the authoritarianism we accept at the airport. The creation ofthe Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has intruded on theprivacy of all airline travelers, and there is little evidence that weare safer for it. Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-oldtemptation 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 preoccupiesour leaders and most of our citizens, and drives the legislative attackon our civil liberties. It's frightening to see us doing to ourselveswhat even bin Laden never dreamed he could accomplish with his suicidebombers. We don't understand the difference between a vague threat ofterrorism and the danger of a guerilla war. One prompts us to expand andnationalize domestic law enforcement while limiting the freedoms of allAmericans. The other deals with understanding terrorists like bin Laden,who declared war against us in 1998. Not understanding the differencemakes it virtually impossible to deal with the real threats. We areobsessed with passing new laws to make our country safe from a terroristattack. This confusion about the cause of the 9/11 attacks, the fearthey engendered, and the willingness to sacrifice liberty prompts manyto declare their satisfaction with the inconveniences and evenhumiliation at our nation's airports. There are always those in government who are anxious to increase itspower and authority over the people. Strict adherence to personalprivacy annoys those who promote a centralized state. It's no surprise to learn that many of the new laws passed in theaftermath of 9/11 had been proposed long before that date. The attacksmerely provided an excuse to do many things previously proposed bydedicated statists. All too often government acts perversely, professing to advanceliberty while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passedsince 9/11 promise to protect our freedoms and our security. In time wewill realize there is little chance our security will be enhanced or ourliberties protected. The powerful and intrusive TSA certainly will not solve ourproblems. Without a full discussion, greater understanding, andultimately a change in the foreign policy that incites those whodeclared war against us, no amount of pat-downs at airports willsuffice. Imagine the harm done, the staggering costs, and the loss ofliberty if the next 20 years pass and airplanes are never employed byterrorists. Even if there is a possibility that airplanes will be usedto terrorize us, TSA's bullying will do little to prevent it. Pattingdown old women and little kids in airports cannot possibly make us safer! TSA cannot protect us from another attack and it is not thesolution. It serves only to make us all more obedient and complacenttoward government intrusions into our lives. The airport mess has been compounded by other problems, which wefail to recognize. Most assume the government has the greatestresponsibility for making private aircraft travel safe. But thisassumption only ignores mistakes made before 9/11, when the governmenttaught us to not resist, taught us that airline personnel could notcarry 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 totalgovernment control and a political takeover by the TSA - which wascompletely contrary to the proposition that private owners have theultimate responsibility to protect their customers. Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fuelthe Transportation Secretary's near obsession with avoiding theappearance of discrimination toward young Muslim males. Instead TSAseemingly targets white children and old women. We have failed torecognize that a safety policy by a private airline is quite a differentthing from government agents blindly obeying anti-discrimination laws. Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination, suchas that which led to incarceration of Japanese Americans in World WarII. However, local law-enforcement agencies should be able to targettheir 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 tosafety on airplanes. The federal government should not be involved inlocal law enforcement, and has no right to discriminate. Airlines, onthe other hand, should be permitted to do whatever is necessary toprovide safety. Private firms - long denied the right - should have aright to discriminate. Fine restaurants, for example, can require thatshoes and shirts be worn for service in their establishments. The logicof this remaining property right should permit more sensible securitychecks at airports. The airlines should be responsible for the safety oftheir property, and liable for it as well. This is not only theresponsibility of the airlines, but it is a civil right that has longbeen denied them and other private companies. The present situation requires the government to punish some bytargeting those individuals who clearly offer no threat. Any airlinethat tries to make travel safer and happens to question a larger numberof young Muslim males than the government deems appropriate can beassessed huge fines. To add insult to injury, the fines collected fromairlines are used for forced sensitivity training of pilots who do theirvery best, under the circumstances, to make flying safer by restrictingthe travel of some individuals. We have embarked on a process thatserves no logical purpose. While airline safety suffers, personalliberty is diminished and costs skyrocket. If we're willing to consider a different foreign policy, we shouldask ourselves a few questions: 1. What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, policing the world, nation building, and spreading our values through force are deeply flawed? 2. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction? 3. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never allies? 4. What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to enhance our national security? 5. What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of our client oil states in the region? 6. 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? 7. What if it turns out there are many more guerrilla fighters in Iraq than our government admits? 8. What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some claim, and what is an acceptable price for "doing good?" 9. 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? 10. 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? 11. 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? 12. 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? 13. 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? 14. What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden? 15. What if we discover that democracy can't be spread with force of arms? 16. 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? 17. 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? 18. What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad? 19. 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? 20. What if the argument that by fighting over there, we won't have to fight here, is wrong, and the opposite is true? 21. What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms? 22. What if the principle of pre-emptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, "justified" by current U.S. policy? 23. What if pre-emptive war and pre-emptive guilt stem from the same flawed policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it? 24. What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally, and turns on us when conditions deteriorate? 25. 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? 26. 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? 27. What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is deeply flawed? 28. 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? 29. 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? 30. 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? 31. 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? 32. 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? 33. What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors, and we are losing an unwinable guerrilla war? 34. 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 #1function of the federal government - to provide for national security -has been severely undermined. On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14aircraft in place to protect the entire U.S. mainland, all of whichproved useless that day. We have an annual DOD budget of over $400billion, most of which is spent overseas in over 100 differentcountries. 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 NewYork City. Moreover, our ill-advised presence in the Middle East and ourdecade-long bombing of Iraq served only to incite the suicidal attacksof 9/11. Before 9/11 our CIA ineptly pursued bin Laden, whom the Taliban wasprotecting. At the same time, the Taliban was receiving significantsupport from Pakistan - our "trusted ally" that received millions ofdollars from the United States. We allied ourselves with both bin Ladenand Hussein in the 1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s. And it's safeto say we have used billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the last 50years pursuing this contradictory, irrational, foolish, costly, and verydangerous foreign policy. Policing the world, spreading democracy by force, nation building,and frequent bombing of countries that pose no threat to us - whileleaving the homeland and our borders unprotected - result from a foreignpolicy that is contradictory and not in our self interest. I hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to theseconcerns. If I'm completely wrong in my criticisms, nothing is lostexcept my time and energy expended in efforts to get others toreconsider our foreign policy. But the bigger question is: What if I'm right, or even partially right, and we urgently need tochange course in our foreign policy for the sake of our national andeconomic 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.