Iraq War
They didn't run away from the President and they lost, I ran away from
the president and I won. I didn't support the war. I didn't support the
Patriot Act.
The Colbert Report, Steven Colbert, Interview with Ron
Paul, June 13, 2007.
We have totally failed to adapt to modern warfare. We’re dealing with a small, nearly invisible enemy—an enemy without a country, a government, an army, a navy, an air force, or missiles. Yet our enemy is armed with suicidal determination, and motivated by our meddling in their regional affairs, to destroy us. And as we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed hospital. Our government systematically undermines the Constitution and the liberties it’s supposed to protect—for which it is claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places. Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a nation of preemptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.
The rationale for this sunset is that according to the 2002 authorization for Iraq , the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only: “(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ” It should be obvious to both supporters and critics of our military action in Iraq that our military has achieved both legal objectives. Our military quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. And a government has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq that has met with U.S. approval, fulfilling the first objective of the authorization. With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, Congress has a Constitutional obligation to revisit this issue and provide needed oversight and policy guidance. We ignore this obligation at risk to the United States and, very importantly, to our soldiers in harm’s way in Iraq .
Can we as a moral people continue to ignore the loss of innocent life on the other side? Can we as a nation accept the callousness of the war proponents regarding the estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths? Can we believe these deaths are a mere consequence of our worthy effort to impose our will on an alien culture? Is it really our duty to sacrifice so much to pursue a questionable policy of dictating to others what we think is best for them? Can these deaths be dismissed as nothing more than “collateral damage,” and even applauded as proof of the professed progress we are making in our effort to democratize the Middle East? By ignoring the human costs of the conflict, we invite problems, and the consequence of our actions will come back to haunt us.
Think of how this undeclared war has contributed to our national deficit, undermined military morale and preparedness, antagonized our allies, and exposed us to an even greater threat from those who resent our destructive occupation. Claiming we have no interests in the oil of the entire Middle East hardly helps our credibility throughout the world.
Already the suffering has begun. A lackluster recovery, low-paying jobs, outsourcing, and social unrest already are apparent. This economic price we pay, along with the human suffering, is an extravagant price for a war that was started with false information and now is prolonged for reasons unrelated to our national security. Ron Paul, “What Does All This Mean?” U.S. House of Representatives, Sept. 8, 2005.
Our use of troops to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was the beginning of the current conflict with Muslim fundamentalists who have been, for the last decade, determined to force the removal of American troops from all Muslim countries—especially the entire Arabian Peninsula, which they consider holy. Though the strategic and historic reasons for our involvement in the Middle East are complex, the immediate reasons given in 2002 and 2003 for our invasion of Iraq were precise. The only problem is they were not based on facts. Ron Paul, “Why We Fight,” U.S. House of Representatives, Sept. 8, 2005.
The resolution, HJ RES 114, explicitly cited the Iraqi Liberation Act
of 1998 as one of the reasons we had to go to war. The authorization granting
the president to use force against Iraq cited two precise reasons: 1.
“To defend the national security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq and” 2. “Enforce all relevant United Nations Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.” Many other reasons were given to stir the
emotions of the American public and the U.S. Congress, reasons that were
grossly misleading and found not to be true. The pretense of a legal justification
was a sham.
Ron Paul, “Why We Fight,” U.S. House of Representatives,
Sept. 8, 2005.
We hear constantly that we must continue the fight in Iraq, and possibly
in Iran and Syria, because, “It’s better to fight the terrorists over
there than here.” Merely repeating this justification, if it is based
on a major analytical error, cannot make it so. All evidence shows that
our presence in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries benefits
al-Qaeda in its recruiting efforts, especially in its search for suicide
terrorists. This one fact prompts a rare agreement among all religious
and secular Muslim factions; namely, that the United States should leave
all Arab lands. Denying this will not keep terrorists from attacking us;
it will do the opposite.
Ron Paul, “The Blame Game,” U.S. House of Representatives,
Dec. 7, 2005.
It is not in our national interest. On the contrary, pursuing this war endangers our security, increases the chances of a domestic terrorist attack, weakens our defenses, and motivates our enemies to join together in opposition to our domineering presence around the world. Does anyone believe that Russia, China, and Iran will give us free rein over the entire Middle East and its oil? Tragically, we’re setting the stage for a much bigger conflict. It’s possible that this war could evolve into something much worse than Vietnam.
Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged—as it already has been. In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein—though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.
It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat-out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
It’s not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq, nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s connection to 9/11, were false. The dollar’s importance is obvious, but this does not diminish the influence of the distinct plans laid out years ago by the neoconservatives to remake the Middle East. Israel’s influence, as well as that of the Christian Zionists, likewise played a role in prosecuting this war. Protecting “our” oil supplies has influenced our Middle East policy for decades.
Though many Americans are starting to feel the economic pain of paying for this war through inflation, the real pain has not yet arrived. We generally remain fat and happy, with a system of money and borrowing that postpones the day of reckoning. Foreigners, in particular the Chinese and Japanese, gladly participate in the charade. We print the money and they take it, as do the OPEC nations, and provide us with consumer goods and oil. Then they loan the money back to us at low interest rates, which we use to finance the war and our housing bubble and excessive consumption. This recycling and perpetual borrowing of inflated dollars allows us to avoid the pain of high taxes to pay for our war and welfare spending. It’s fine until the music stops and the real costs are realized, with much higher interest rates and significant price inflation. That’s when outrage will be heard, and the people will realize we can’t afford the “humanitarianism” of the neoconservatives.