So let me get this straight: Even though the House of Saud had no problem allowing American forces near Mecca to protect the nation from having its oil fields possessed by Saddam, the USA was supposed to consider the feelings of a terrorist leader that was expelled from the nation?
On top of that, America was supposed to consider the grievances of someone concerned about "the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War" when the consensus of the U.N. and both the Clinton and Bush administrations were that Saddam was hiding nuclear weapon manufacturing capability in violation of the cease-fire that ended the war?
It would be very interesting to read what Congressman Paul said on the House floor about these things when they were actually happening, and not simply making reference to history books written by bureaucrats with 20/20 hindsight.
Considering that AQ has grown into a worldwide insurgency movement that has already killed thousands of Americans and about which there are justified fears of chemical, biological or nuclear attacks against the US and considering that during this period of growth from 1991 until the day US troops left Saudi Arabia, AQ has repeatedly cited the US military presence in Saudi Arabia as one of the bases of its war against the US...yes...that should be part of the equation when the US government made the decision to keep US bases in Saudi Arabia (or when the US government today decides to build permanent bases in Iraq)...to not even consider the fact the AQ cited this as one of the three or four reasons for its war against the US would be to show that one is not serious about fighting the threat of terrorism against the US
On top of that, America was supposed to consider the grievances of someone concerned about "the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of the sanctions imposed after the Gulf War" when the consensus of the U.N. and both the Clinton and Bush administrations were that Saddam was hiding nuclear weapon manufacturing capability in violation of the cease-fire that ended the war?
Umm...yeah...I mean, would most Americans really agree with Madeline Albright when she told 60 Minutes that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions was "worth it"? When American planes (flying under UN authority...which should really make the blood of patriotic Americans boil) bombed electrical stations in Iraq so as to disable the water treatment plants...which directly led to the spread of diseases like cholera and typhoid...I think most Americans would disagree with Col. John Warden III, deputy director of strategy for the Air Force when he said:
People say, “You didn’t recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage.” Well, what were we trying to do with sanctions — help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of the sanctions. Saddam Hussein cannot restore his own electricity. He needs help. If there are political objectives that the UN coalition has, it can say, “Saddam, when you agree to do these things, we will allow people to come in and fix your electricity.” It gives us long-term leverage.
I believe most Americans would be reviled at US government officials pursuing policies they knew were resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's...mostly children...but you and I know that most Americans were only vaguely aware that the US government was even imposing sanctions against Iraq. This is why Ron Paul is not blaming "America"...he is blaming the American government for undertaking policies that ultimately endanger Americans. Yes...Saddam holds a lot of resonsibility for the deaths of those Iraqi civilians...but so does the US government...and the Muslim world remembers comments like Albright's and assumes (probably correctly) that the US government kills Muslims without much care...are we surprised this makes Muslims angry?
It would be very interesting to read what Congressman Paul said on the House floor about these things when they were actually happening, and not simply making reference to history books written by bureaucrats with 20/20 hindsight.
Fortunately, Ron Paul's congressional website has a good archive of his speeches and writings and you can see that he has remained consistent on these points and most of his predictions of the effects on the American people of the American government's foreign policies have proven to be correct. With respect to the war in Iraq...you can go back and look at his speeches and writings from 2002...his predictions for this war have proven to be, unfortunately, amazingly accurate. And on the broader issues of American interventionism in the Middle East and the Muslim reactions to that interventionism...here are two articles of Ron Paul's from the Clinton years...he's been warning Americans for a long time about the eventual costs of our government's omnipresence in the Middle East
Many Americans believe President Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan was nothing more than a scene from the recent movie "Wag the Dog." I have been asked by the media if I agreed. My answer has been simple: I really don't know
However, there is a much more important issue at stake, and that is an inconsistent and dangerous foreign policy that we have for years followed in the Middle East.
The natural tendency for all Americans is to want to quickly retaliate against anyone who would dare try to kill American citizens. And that is, of course, understandable. But if this in reality makes things much worse and doesn't come close to punishing those responsible, then it may well be a serious mistake on our part.
A few facts to remember:
First, prior to the terrorist attacks on Tanzania and Kenya, two prominent Arabic newspapers, printed in London, reported that an extremist Islamic Jihad vowed revenge against the United States for capturing three Islamic fundamentalists who were promoting Albanian separatism in Kosovo. Why we did this should prompt a serious discussion regarding our policy in that region.
Next, Osama bin Laden and his Afghan religious supporters were American allies throughout the 1980s and received our money and training and were heralded as the Afghan "Freedom Fighters." Even then, bin Laden let it be known that his people resented all imperialism, whether from the Soviets or the United States.
Finally, the region's Muslims see America as the imperialist invader. They have deeply held religious beliefs, and in their desire for national sovereignty many see America as a threatening menace. America's presence in the Middle East, most flagrantly demonstrated with troops and bases in Saudi Arabia, is something many Muslims see as defiling their holy land. Many Muslims --and this is what makes an extremist like bin Laden so popular -- see American policy as identical to Israel's policy; an affront to them that is rarely understood by most Americans.
Far too often, the bombing of declared (or concocted) enemies, whether it's the North Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Libyans, the Sudanese, the Albanians, or the Afghans, produces precisely the opposite effect to what is sought. It kills innocent people, creates more hatred toward America, unifies and stimulates the growth of the extremist Islamic movement and makes them more determined than ever to strike back with their weapon of choice -- terror.
--Ron Paul, Aug. 24, 1998
"Wagging" imperialism as bad as the Dog
In recent weeks we have seen politicians and media personalities begin to beat the drums of war. While the overthrow of Iraq's Saddam Hussein would undoubtedly be a positive event for that nation and the world, those who have fervently called for American involvement and intervention have misunderstood the problems and ignored the costs.
Most fundamentally, U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq is flawed; it totally ignores history, and reflects a lack of understanding of long-time justifiable Arab distrust of the West. The Middle East has been savaged and ruled by outsiders for a thousand years, and U.N. quick-fixes will only aggravate the understandable resentment of those seen as foreign infidels by the Arabs.
Regardless of how we may judge the merits of each war or occupation over the past 1000 years, the Arab mind is deeply influenced by the history of Roman, European, and now American meddling. Even the current borders between Middle Eastern countries have been imposed and enforced by outsiders without regard to the history of the region. This is not to argue who is right or who is wrong in each dispute but to emphasize the long-standing nature of the conflicts in the region that prevents a solution coming from the West. Arabs see U.N. policy as U.S. policy, and believe it to be anti-Arab, something that U.S. bombs only re-enforce.
There is no direct national security interests for us to be in Iraq. We are not the policeman of the world, we can't afford it, and our interventionist efforts usually backfire. Our policy in this region has been designed more to promote the United Nations than to deal with any threat to our national security. Control of the region's huge oil reserves is a much more important factor than U.S. security.
The cost of such an involvement is very high, and dependent on the immoral use of force. It is argued that the Persian Gulf War was a "cheap" war because less than 200 American military personnel lost their lives. But I argue that even if only one life is needlessly lost, the cost is too high. The billions of dollars spent obviously is a major cost to the American taxpayer. And with an estimated 35,000 military personnel suffering from the Gulf War Syndrome, a final price has yet to be determined. And horribly, the "price" innocent Iraqi civilians pay is seemingly of no concern to our policy makers.
--Ron Paul, Nov. 24, 1997
Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace