LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  January 2005

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE January 2005

Subject:

What If (It Was All a Big Mistake)?

From:

Wren Osborn <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:10:58 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (332 lines)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012905B.shtml

  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:

    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 unwinnable 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 #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.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager