- ...before the US House of Representatives, April 6,
2005.
-
- Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the
success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify
the war, the retort is: "Aren't the people of Iraq better off?"
The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about
supporting
the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever
committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are
better
off is that it's too early to declare, "Mission Accomplished."
But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified
or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim
yielded
good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the
ends justify the means?
-
- The information Congress was given prior to the war was
false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not
participate
in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and
did not conspire against the United States; our security was not
threatened;
we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi
oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but
instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as
justification
for our invasion. After the fact we're now told the real reason for the
Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off.
Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam
Hussein,
disapproving of democracy, or "supporting terrorists." It's
implied
that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn't
support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step with the
consensus
or be ostracized.
-
- However, conceding that the world is better off without
Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own
government that led to the regime change. In time it will become clear
to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and
interventionist
nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of
Saddam Hussein itself. The interventionist policy should be scrutinized
more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein's removal
from power. The real question ought to be: "Are we better off with
a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with
false information?" Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should
not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when
our national security is threatened.
-
- How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of
thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their
city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not
better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews,
and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as
estimated
by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to
be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.
-
- Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many
critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented
by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce
when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon.
Why is it that what is good for the goose isn't always good for the
gander?
-
- Our government fails to recognize that legitimate
elections
are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not
create freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first
and elections followed - not the other way around.
-
- One news report claimed that the Shiites actually
received
56% of the vote, but such an outcome couldn't be allowed for it would
preclude
a coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and
preventing
a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the statement made months
ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging
from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen.
Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don't like
the results.
-
- Some have described Baghdad and especially the green
zone, as being surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and
out of Baghdad are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war will break
out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it's already underway.
-
- We have seen none of the promised oil production that
was supposed to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for
the hundreds of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war.
Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990
because of a need to protect "our" oil. Yet now that Saddam
Hussein
is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at
the pumps is reaching record highs approaching $3 per gallon.
-
- Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still
is no government in place and the next election - supposedly the real one
- is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any
idea who really won the dubious election at all?
-
- The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been
replaced by corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq.
Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of
these funds. The over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process
has not changed.
-
- The whole process is corrupt. It just doesn't make sense
to most Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary
and unjustified war. First they see American bombs destroying a country,
and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it's easier
to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge
in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers' budget
and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq
skyrocket.
-
- One question the war promoters don't want to hear asked,
because they don't want to face up to the answer, is this: "Are
Christian
Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force
of arms?" The answer is plainly no.
-
- Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq,
but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq
Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein's cabinet as Foreign Minister
- something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other
Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under
attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced
to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It's strange that the human rights
advocates
in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now
going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims
support the attacks on Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one
of the few areas in which they agree - the other being the removal of all
foreign forces from Iraqi soil.
-
- Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos
in Iraq, it's difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis
all feel much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam
Hussein.
Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near being
under control.
-
- But there's another question that is equally important:
"Are the American people better off because of the Iraq
war?"
-
- One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers
aren't better off. The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American
troops are not better off. The families, the wives, the husbands, children,
parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not better off.
-
- The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to
re-enlist against their will - a de facto draft - are not feeling better
off. They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment
agreements.
-
- The American taxpayers are not better off having spent
over 200 billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent.
The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter
policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.
-
- Are our relationships with the rest of the world better
off? I'd say no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are
weaker than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of
Muslims
around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more
likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting has
accelerated.
Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which
it never was under Hussein's rule. So as our military recruitment efforts
suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist
volunteers.
-
- Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now
it's more than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?
-
- Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real
national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up,
but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and
further undermines our credibility around the world.
-
- The ongoing war's lack of success has played a key role
in diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply
down, and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans
rightly fear a coming draft - which will be required if we do not reassess
and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.
-
- The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget
and obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and
increase
in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic
stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected
policy.
-
- One of the most significant consequences in times of
war that we ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal
liberty. Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed
conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice
personal freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is that we are
told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while
carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we're supposed to
be fighting for. It makes no sense.
-
- This willingness to give up hard-fought personal
liberties
has been especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September
11th war on terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political
goal, damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done in
the name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant
nationalism.
-
- These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy,
and our eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not
responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in our
national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of law for
those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.
-
- We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary,
constitutional, and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper
declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress.
Let's hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed
Forces are wrong.
-
- A large segment of the Christian community and its
leadership
think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides
itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that
blessed are the peacemakers - not the warmongers.
-
- We casually accept our role as world policeman, and
believe
we have a moral obligation to practice nation building in our image
regardless
of the number of people who die in the process.
-
- We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made
our country great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the
Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling
alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the message of hope and
freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief
that use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world
- and we have accepted, as the only superpower, the principle of initiating
war against others.
-
- In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed
a usurpation of their own authority, generously delivered to the executive
and judicial branches - not to mention international government bodies.
The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns
only the fringe in our society.
-
- Protection of life and liberty must once again become
the issue that drives political thought in this country. If this goal is
replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the
economy, regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary
desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a
totalitarian state. There's no need for that. It's up to Congress and the
American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct
our mistakes.
-
- April 7, 2005
-
- Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from
Texas.
|
