ZGram - 1/30/2001 - "The Paul Revere Series: Ron Paul in 'The Case for Defending America'" - Part II

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

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)