ZGram - 1/30/2001 - "The Paul Revere Series: Ron Paul in 'The
Case for Defending America'" - Part II
irimland@zundelsite.org
irimland@zundelsite.org
Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:20:40 -0800
Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland
ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny
January 30, 2002
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
Part II of the Paul Revere Series, featuring Congressman Ron Paul:
[START]
Our terrorist enemy is vague and elusive. Our plans to expand our
current military operations into many other countries are fraught with
great risks- risks of making our problems worse. Not dealing with the
people actually responsible for the attacks and ignoring the root causes
of the terrorism will needlessly perpetuate and expand a war that will do
nothing to enhance the security and safety of the American people.
Since Iraq is now less likely to be hit, it looks like another
poverty-ridden, rudderless nation, possibly Somalia, will be the next
target. No good can come of this process. It will provide more fodder for
the radicals' claim that the war is about America against Islam. Somalia
poses no threat to the United States, but bombing Somalia as we have
Afghanistan- and Iraq for 12 years- will only incite more hatred toward
the U.S. and increase the odds of our someday getting hit again by some
frustrated, vengeful, radicalized Muslim.
Our presence in the Persian Gulf is not necessary to provide for
America's defense. Our presence in the region makes all Americans more
vulnerable to attacks and defending America much more difficult. The
real reason for our presence in the Persian Gulf, as well as our eagerness
to assist in building a new Afghan government under UN authority, should
be apparent to us all.
Stewart Eizenstat, Undersecretary of Economics, Business, and
Agricultural Affairs for the previous administration, succinctly stated
U.S. policy for Afghanistan, testifying before the Senate Foreign
Relations "Trade" Subcommittee on October 13, 1997:
[One of] "Five main foreign policy interests in the Caspian region [is]
continued support for U.S. companies" [and] "the least progress has been
made in Afghanistan, where gas and oil pipeline proposals designed to
carry central Asian energy to world markets have been delayed
indefinitely pending establishment of a broad-based multi-ethnic
government."
This was a rather blunt acknowledgment of our intentions. It is
apparent that our policy has not changed with this administration. Our
new special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, was at one time a
lobbyist for the Taliban and worked for Unocal- the American oil company
seeking rights to build oil and gas pipelines through northern
Afghanistan. During his stint as a lobbyist, he urged approval of the
Taliban and defended them in the U.S. press. He now, of course, sings a
different tune with respect to the Taliban, but I am sure his views on
the pipeline by U.S. companies have not changed.
Born in Afghanistan, Khalilzad is a controversial figure, to say the
least, due to his close relationship with the oil industry and previously
with the Taliban. His appointment to the National Security Council very
conveniently did not require confirmation by the Senate. Khalilzad also
is a close ally of the Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, in promoting
early and swift military action against Iraq.
The point being, of course, that it may be good to have a new Afghan
government, but the question is whether that is our responsibility and
whether we should be doing it under the constraints of our Constitution.
There's a real question of whether it will serve our best interests in the
long-term.
CIA support for the Shah of Iran for 25 years led to the long-term
serious problems with that nation that persist even to this day. Could
oil be the reason we have concentrated on bombing Afghanistan while
ignoring Saudi Arabia, even though we have never found Osama bin Laden?
Obviously, Saudi Arabia is culpable in these terrorist attacks in the
United States, and yet little is done about it.
There are quite a few unintended consequences that might occur if our
worldwide commitment to fighting terrorism is unrestrained.
Russia's interests in the Afghan region are much more intense than Putin
would have us believe, and Russia's active involvement in a spreading
regional conflict should be expected.
An alliance between Iraq and Iran against the U.S. is a more likely
possibility now than ever before. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri is
optimistically working on bringing the two nations together in a military
alliance. His hope is that this would be activated if we attacked Iraq.
The two nations have already exchanged prisoners of war as a step in that
direction.
U.S. military planners are making preparations for our troops to stay in
Central Asia for a long time. A long time could mean 50 years! We have
been in Korea for that long, and have been in Japan and Europe even
longer, but the time will come when we will wear out our welcome and have
to leave these areas. The Vietnam War met with more resistance, and we
left relatively quickly in humiliating defeat. Similarly, episodes of a
more minor nature occurred in Somalia and Lebanon.
Why look for more of these kinds of problems when it does not serve our
interests? Jeopardizing our security violates the spirit of our
Constitution and inevitably costs us more than we can afford.
Our permanent air bases built in Saudi Arabia are totally unessential to
our security, contributed to the turmoil in the Middle East, and they
continue to do so.
We're building a giant new air base in Kyrgyzstan, a country once part
of the Soviet Union and close to Russia. China, also a neighbor, with
whom we eagerly seek a close relationship as a trading partner, will not
ignore our military buildup in this region.
Islamic fundamentalists may overthrow the current government of Saudi
Arabia- a fear that drives her to cooperate openly with the terrorists
while flaunting her relationship with the United States. The Wall Street
Journal has editorialized that the solution ought to be our forcibly
seizing the Saudi Arabian oil fields and replacing the current government
with an even more pro-Western government. All along I thought we condemned
regimes that took over their neighbors' oil fields!
The editorial, unbelievably explicit, concluded by saying: "Finally, we
must be prepared to seize the Saudi oil fields and administer them for the
greater good." The greater good? I just wonder whose greater good?
If the jingoism of the Wall Street Journal prevails, and the warmongers
in the Congress and the administration carry the day, we can assume with
certainty that these efforts being made will precipitate an uncontrollable
breakout of hostilities in the region that could lead to World War III.
How a major publication can actually print an article that openly
supports such aggression as a serious proposal is difficult to
comprehend! Two countries armed with nuclear weapons, on the verge of war
in the region, and we're being urged to dig a deeper hole for ourselves
by seizing the Saudi oil fields?
Already the presence of our troops in the Muslim holy land of Saudi
Arabia has inflamed the hatred [that] drove the terrorists to carry out
their tragic acts of 9-11. Pursuing such an aggressive policy would only
further undermine our ability to defend the American people and will
compound the economic problems we face.
Something, anything, regardless of its effectiveness, had to be done,
since the American people expected it, and Congress and the
Administration willed it. An effort to get the terrorists and their
supporters is obviously in order, and hopefully that has been achieved.
But a never-ending commitment to end all terrorism in the world, whether
it is related to the attack on September 11th or not, is neither a
legitimate nor wise policy.
HJ RES 64 gives the President authority to pursue only those guilty of
the attack on us- not every terrorist in the entire world. Let there be
no doubt: for every terrorist identified, others will see only a freedom
fighter.
When we aided Osama bin Laden in the 1980s, he was a member of the
Mujahidien, and they were the freedom fighters waging a just war against
the Soviet Army. A broad definition of terrorism outside the understanding
of "those who attack the United States" opens a Pandora's box in our
foreign policy commitments.
If we concentrate on searching for all terrorists throughout the world
and bombing dozens of countries, but forget to deal with the important
contributing factors that drove those who killed our fellow citizens, we
will only make ourselves more vulnerable to new attacks.
How can we forever fail to address the provocative nature of U.S.
taxpayer money being used to suppress and kill Palestinians and ignore
the affront to the Islamic people that our military presence on their
holy land of Saudi Arabia causes- not to mention the persistent 12 years
of bombing Iraq?
I'm fearful that an unlimited worldwide war against all terrorism will
distract from the serious consideration that must be given to our policy
of foreign interventionism, driven by the powerful commercial interests
and a desire to promote world government. This is done while ignoring our
principle responsibility of protecting national security and liberty here
at home.
There is a serious problem with a policy that has allowed a successful
attack on our homeland. It cannot be written off as a result of irrational
yet efficient evildoers who are merely jealous of our success and despise
our freedoms.
We've had enemies throughout our history, but never before have we
suffered such an attack that has made us feel so vulnerable. The cause of
this crisis is much more profound and requires looking inwardly as well
as outwardly at our own policies as well as those of others.
The Founders of this country were precise in their beliefs regarding
foreign policy. Our Constitution reflects these beliefs, and all of our
early presidents endorsed these views. It was not until the 20th Century
that our nation went off to far away places looking for dragons to slay.
This past century reflects the new and less-traditional American policy of
foreign interventionism. Our economic and military power, a result of our
domestic freedoms, has permitted us to survive and even thrive while
dangerously expanding our worldwide influence.
There's no historic precedent that such a policy can be continued
forever. All empires and great nations throughout history have ended when
they stretched their commitments overseas too far and abused their
financial system at home. The over-commitment of a country's military
forces when forced with budgetary constraints can only lead to a lower
standard of living for its citizens. That has already started to happen
here in the United States. Who today is confident the government and our
private retirement systems are sound and the benefits guaranteed?
The unfortunate complicating factor that all great powers suffer is the
buildup of animosity toward the nation currently at the top of the heap,
which is aggravated by arrogance and domination over the weaker nations.
We are beginning to see this, and the Wall Street Journal editorial
clearly symbolizes this arrogance.
The traditional American foreign policy of the Founders and our
presidents for the first 145 years of our history entailed three points:
Friendship with all nations desiring of such. As much free trade and
travel with those countries as possible. Avoiding entangling alliances.
This is still good advice. The Framers also understood that the important
powers for dealing with other countries and the issue of war were to be
placed in the hands of the Congress. This principle has essentially been
forgotten.
The executive branch now has much more power than does the Congress.
Congress continues to allow its authority to be transferred to the
executive branch, as well as to international agencies, such as the UN,
NAFTA, IMF, and the WTO. Through executive orders, our presidents
routinely use powers once jealously guarded and held by the Congress.
Today, through altering aid and sanctions, we buy and sell our
"friendship" with all kinds of threats and bribes in our effort to spread
our influence around the world. To most people in Washington, free trade
means international managed trade, with subsidies and support for the
WTO, where influential corporations can seek sanctions against their
competitors. Our alliances, too numerous to count, have committed our
dollars and our troops to such an extent that, under today's
circumstances, there's not a border war or civil disturbance in the world
in which we do not have a stake. And more than likely, we have a stake-
foreign aid- in both sides of each military conflict.
After the demise of our nemesis, the Soviet Union, many believed that we
could safely withdraw from some of our worldwide commitments. It was hoped
we would start minding our own business, save some money, and reduce the
threat to our military personnel. But the opposite has happened. Without
any international competition for super-power status, our commitments have
grown and spread, so that today we provide better military protection to
Taiwan and South Korea and Saudi Arabia than we do for our own cities like
New York and Washington.
I am certain that national security and defense of our own cities can
never be adequately provided unless we reconsider our policy of foreign
interventionism.
Conventional wisdom in Washington today is that we have no choice but to
play the role of the world's only superpower. Recently, we had to cancel
flights of our own Air Force over our cities because of spending
constraints, and we rely on foreign AWACS aircraft to patrol our airspace.
The American people are not in sync with the assumption that we must
commit ourselves endlessly to being the world's policemen. If we do not
wisely step back and reassess our worldwide commitments and our endless
entanglements as we march toward world government, economic law will one
day force us to do so anyway under undesirable circumstances. In the
meantime, we can expect plenty more military confrontations around the
world while becoming even more vulnerable to attack by terrorists here at
home.
[END]
=====
(Source: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr012402.htm
)
Thought for the Day:
"A pleasing land of drowsyheads it was."
(James Thomson)