Posted on 12/14/2004 4:24:03 PM PST by cougar_mccxxi
Ron Paul, December 13, 2004
A recent study by the Pentagon’s Defense Science Task Force on Strategic Communications concluded that in the struggle for hearts and minds in Iraq, "American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended." This Pentagon report flatly states that our war in Iraq actually has elevated support for radical Islamists. It goes on to conclude that our active intervention in the Middle East as a whole has greatly diminished our reputation in the region, and strengthened support for radical groups. This is similar to what the CIA predicted in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, before the invasion took place.
Then, earlier this month we learned that the CIA station chief in Baghdad sent a cable back to the US warning that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, and not expected to improve any time soon. Other CIA experts also warn that the security situation in Iraq is likely to get even worse in the future. These reports are utterly ignored by the administration.
These recent reports are not the product of some radical antiwar organization. They represent the US government’s own assessment of our "progress" in Iraq after two and a half years and the loss of thousands of lives. We are alienating the Islamic world in our oxymoronic quest to impose democracy in Iraq.
This demonstrates once again the folly of nation building, which is something candidate Bush wisely rejected before the 2000 election. The worsening situation in Iraq also reminds us that going to war without a congressional declaration, as the Constitution requires, leads us into protracted quagmires over and over again.
The reality is that current-day Iraq contains three distinct groups of people whom have been at odds with each other for generations. Pundits and politicians tell us that a civil war will erupt if the US military departs. Yet our insistence that Iraq remain one indivisible nation actually creates the conditions for civil war. Instead of an artificial, forced, nationalist unity between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, we should allow each group to seek self-government and choose voluntarily whether they wish to associate with a central government. We cannot impose democracy in Iraq any more than we can erase hundreds of years of Iraqi history.
Even opponents of the war now argue that we must occupy Iraq indefinitely until a democratic government takes hold, no matter what the costs. No attempt is made by either side to explain exactly why it is the duty of American soldiers to die for the benefit of Iraq or any other foreign country. No reason is given why American taxpayers must pay billions of dollars to build infrastructure in Iraq. We are expected to accept the interventionist approach without question, as though no other options exist. This blanket acceptance of foreign meddling and foreign aid may be the current Republican policy, but it is not a conservative policy by any means.
Non-interventionism was the foreign policy ideal of the Founding Fathers, an ideal that is ignored by both political parties today. Those who support political and military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere should have the integrity to admit that their views conflict with the principles of our nation’s founding. It’s easy to repeat the tired cliché that "times have changed since the Constitution was written"- in fact, that’s an argument the left has used for decades to justify an unconstitutional welfare state. Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from the founding era should we discard? Should we reject federalism? Habeas corpus? How about the Second Amendment? The principle of limited government enshrined in the Constitution- limited government in both domestic and foreign affairs- has not changed over time. What has changed is our willingness to ignore that principle.
Congressman Ron Paul, a Republican, represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas, which encompasses the Gulf Coast region south and west of Houston.
Yawn.... Another hysteric.
Gee, Ron- you know there was a congressional declaration, as the Constitution requires- you voted against it!
These idiots don't realize how bad they're going to be judged by history.
Time to pack up and go home and wait for the next strike on our shores. Not. Pre-emption is the more conservative approach. Without it, homeland security would be extreme, more civil liberties eroded, a necessity to thwart terrorists immigrating from Sadams terror kingdom.
Ron Paul on foreign affairs? Poor guy hasn't a clue on such matters. I guess he's so far right, he's now on the left! Sounds like them anyway.
Such TRIPE!
"It goes on to conclude that our active intervention in the Middle East as a whole has greatly diminished our reputation in the region, and strengthened support for radical groups."
Ron Paul and the author of this Pentagon report do not understand the Arab radical mindset. They are not emboldened by strong action, they're cowed by it. It's when we show weakness that these people prosper. Bin Laden's recruiting heyday was the 90s, when we did NOTHING to combat terrorism, only showed the most tepid reactions to a dozen successful and unsuccessful Al Qaeda attacks on American targets, ran out of Somalia with our tails between our legs and kissed up to Muslim causes from the Balkans to Israel. Bin Laden looked to all these examples of America seeming to lack any will to call America a "paper tiger." Indeed, he promised his people there would be no American response to the 9-11 attacks.
It is the kind or PRO-ACTIVE defense posture we are pursuing now that puts the brakes on these people and their evil ambitions. By and large these people aren't heroes full of bravado and daring-do. They're cowards whose Jihadist fires are largely extinguished when someone stands up to them as we're now doing. Sure there are a few thousand exceptions (foreign Al Qaeda fighters) trying to fight us in Iraq. But we need not assume the outsized headlines about attacks in Iraq to represent outsized numbers of Arab radicals who are willing to fight us.
If these Arabs are such the emboldened heroes Paul and his misguided friend at the Pentagon think they are, there would be hundreds of thousands of foreign fighters there willing and ready to fight us, not a few thousand. And American KIA would be 20,000-30,000, not 1300.
Finally, someone needs to ask Ron Paul if he'd prefer we freed up those few thousan Jihadist now locked down under our guns in Iraq to go back into their Afghan, Pakistani, Yemeni, Egyptian and Saudi ratholes to hide out and plot against us here at home rather than being in Iraq where we can get at them?
Paul is showing his naivete and his ignorance of the Arab mindset in his remarks, as is the person who wrote this Pentagon report. And I think we know how the CIA has been out to undermine the president for over a year now.
re: " 'American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.' This Pentagon report flatly states that our war in Iraq actually has elevated support for radical Islamists."
Given that this "Pentagon Report" doesn't square with what the troops with boots on the ground are saying, I'm wondering just where this report came from and who wrote it? Was it written by some ivory tower resident, or maybe the janitor?
Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air most of the time. This time he misses the mark. Fighting the Islamofascists in their own backyard is more desirable than fighting them in mine. Or yours.
The DSB is a Federal Advisory Committee, like Hillary's Health Task Force. It's one opinion.
Our first three Presidents all fought wars under congressional resolutions just like the Iraq war is being fought. Since the Founding Fathers considered the resolutions "congressional declarations as required by the Constitution" it's just silly of Ron to claim otherwise.
I wish he'd quit being dishonest, I like him.
I used to like him as well, but he's gone too far over the edge now.
If he is the only one who had voted, he would have won.
Ron Paul is angling for a job within the Republican Party.
He appears on CSPAN from time to time.
..."... our oxymoronic quest to impose democracy in Iraq."...
If he means imposing an elected "Iraqi Unity" among Kurds, Sunni and Shia--I agree with him. They sure don't want any part of each other----elected or otherwise.
They are used to dictators, and hope for, at best, a Benevolent Dictator, at best. Ain't gonna happen while we are in country. They must vote and must behave like ONE IRAQ, like it or not.
Of course, if Ron Paul can persuade the UN to persuade Iraq to split up......who knows what can happen?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.