@@ Dr. Ron Paul, Republican Congressman: It's time to FREE the U.S. Congress ("Israeli-occupied territory") @@
- From: "Arash" <A7000@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 11:21:18 -0400
AntiWar
April 7, 2006
Iran: The Next Neocon Target
Dr. Ron Paul M.D.
Republican Congressman
It's been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam and his weapons
of mass destruction. Of course, now almost everybody knows there were no WMD and
Saddam posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in
Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam was involved in 9/11, even the
administration now acknowledges there was no connection.
Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse,
also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state, friendly to the
United States. There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a
significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would
explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous
huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They're also funding a new billion dollar
embassy ? the largest in the world.
The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three
years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we
have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials
who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder: If the past
three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how
many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead
give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive
the three-year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos, and stupendous consumption of
tax dollars? Conceivably, we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most
importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. casualties would not have occurred. My guess is that
99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would never
support the invasion knowing what we know today.
Even with the horrible results of the past three years, U.S. Congress (or as the late
senator William J. Fulbright used to call U.S. Congress, the "Israeli-occupied
territory") is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government. There is little
resistance to the rising clamor for "democratizing" Iran, even though their current
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is an elected leader.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/25305e9e239f1053
Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our
Arab allies about which we never complain.
Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran
for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no
more present than those Saddam was alleged to have had. It's amazing how soon after
being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam the neocons are
willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It's frightening to see how easily
Congress, the media, and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran
that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq.
Since 2001, we have spent over $300 billion, and occupied two Muslim nations ?
Afghanistan and Iraq. We're poorer but certainly not safer for it. We invaded
Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ring leader behind 9/11. This effort has been
virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan,
most of the country is now occupied and controlled by warlords who manage a drug
trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan
actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban's arch enemy, more than our own.
The longtime neocon goal to remake Iraq prompted us to abandon the search for Osama
bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was hyped as a noble mission, justified by
misrepresentations of intelligence concerning Saddam and his ability to attack us and
his neighbors. This failed policy has created the current chaos in Iraq? chaos that
many describe as a civil war. Saddam is out of power, and most people are pleased.
Yet some Iraqis who dream of stability long for his authoritarian rule. But once
again, Saddam's removal benefited the Iranians, who considered Saddam Hussein an arch
enemy.
Our obsession with democracy? which is clearly conditional, when one looks at our
response to the recent Palestinian elections? will allow the majority Shia to claim
leadership title if Iraq's election actually leads to an organized government. This
delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.
Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and
destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran's worst enemies
and placed power in Iraq with Iran's best friends. Even this apparent failure of
policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with
Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures?
Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of imaginary
nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran ? whether planned or accidental ? will
rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country #3. All the past failures
and unintended consequences will be forgotten.
Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new information, well-planned
propaganda, or a major incident will override the skepticism and heartache of our
frustrating fight. Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be labeled
unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to Iran's radicals.
Instead of capitulating to these charges, we should point out that those who maneuver
us into war do so with little concern for our young people serving in the military,
and theoretically think little of their own children if they have any. It's hard to
conceive that political supporters of the war would consciously claim that a
preemptive war for regime change, where young people are sacrificed, is only worth it
if the deaths and injuries are limited to other people's children. This, I'm sure,
would be denied? which means their own children are technically available for this
sacrifice that is so often praised and glorified for the benefit of the families who
have lost so much. If so, they should think more of their own children. If this is
not so, and their children are not available for such sacrifice, the hypocrisy is
apparent. Remember, most neocon planners fall into the category of chickenhawks.
For the past three years, it's been inferred that if one is not in support of the
current policy, one is against the troops and supports the enemy. Lack of support for
the war in Iraq was said to be supportive of Saddam and his evil policies. This is an
insulting and preposterous argument. Those who argued for the containment of the
Soviets were never deemed sympathetic to Stalin or Khrushchev. Lack of support for
the Iraq war should never be used as an argument that one was sympathetic to Saddam.
Containment and diplomacy are far superior to confronting a potential enemy, and are
less costly and far less dangerous ? especially when there's no evidence that our
national security is being threatened.
Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the various arguments for the
Iraq war, three years ago they were easily persuaded by the politicians and media to
fully support the invasion. Now, after three years of terrible pain for so many, even
the troops are awakening from their slumber and sensing the fruitlessness of our
failing effort. 72% of our troops now serving in Iraq say it's time to come home, yet
the majority still cling to the propaganda that we're there because of 9/11 attacks,
something even the administration has ceased to claim. Propaganda is pushed on our
troops to exploit their need to believe in a cause that's worth the risk to life and
limb.
I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I'm wrong. I sense that
circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and cost. Any
lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on terrorism and al-Qaeda
[al-CIA-duh]. We will be told we must support Israel, support patriotism, support the
troops, and defend freedom. The public too often only smells the stench of war after
the killing starts. Public objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to stop
the war. I worry that before we can finish the war we're in and extricate ourselves,
the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, "enough
already!"
The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to attack
us have already begun. It's too bad we can't learn from our mistakes.
This time, there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned by
the UN before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the international
community, we should expect the plan for regime change to continue. We have been
forewarned that "all options" remain on the table. And there's little reason to
expect much resistance from Congress. So far there's less resistance expressed in
Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq. It's astonishing
that after three years of bad results and tremendous expense there's little
indication we will reconsider our traditional noninterventionist foreign policy.
Unfortunately, regime change, nation building, policing the world, and protecting
"our oil" still constitute an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties.
It's already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead serious about
obtaining a nuclear weapon, and is a much more formidable opponent than Iraq.
Besides, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened to destroy Israel, and that cannot stand.
Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat that cannot be
ignored.
Iran's history is being ignored, just as we ignored Iraq's history. This ignorance or
deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is required
to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country that poses no threat to
us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative than those toward Iraq. Yes,
President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and unnecessarily provoked their
anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran started a long time before this president
took office.
In 1953, our CIA, with help of the British, participated in overthrowing the
democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm).
We placed the Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in power. He ruled ruthlessly but protected
our oil interests, and for that we protected him ? that is, until 1979.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi
We even provided him with Iran's first nuclear reactor. Evidently, we didn't buy the
argument that his oil supplies precluded a need for civilian nuclear energy.
[See declassified documents on the website of the President Ford Library
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran ]
From 1953 to 1979, his authoritarian rule served to incite a radical Muslimopposition led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who overthrew the Shah and took our
hostages in 1979.
This blowback event was slow in coming, but Muslims have long memories. The hostage
crisis and overthrow of the Shah by the Ayatollah was a major victory for the radical
Islamists. Most Americans either never knew about or easily forgot our unwise
meddling in the internal affairs of Iran in 1953.
During the 1980s, we further antagonized Iran by supporting the Iraqis in their
invasion of Iran. This made our relationship with Iran worse, while sending a message
to Saddam that invading a neighboring country is not all that bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
When Saddam got the message from our State Department that his plan to invade Kuwait
was not of much concern to the United States, he immediately proceeded to do so. We
in a way encouraged him to do it, almost like we encouraged him to go into Iran. Of
course, this time our reaction was quite different, and all of a sudden our friendly
ally Saddam became our arch enemy. The American people may forget this flip-flop, but
those who suffered from it never forget.
And the Iranians remember well our meddling in their affairs. Labeling the Iranians
part of the axis of evil further alienated them and contributed to the animosity
directed toward us.
For whatever reasons the neoconservatives might give, they are bound and determined
to confront the Iranian government and demand changes in its leadership. This policy
will further spread our military presence and undermine our security. The sad truth
is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no more real than those claimed about
Iraq. The charges made against Iran are unsubstantiated, and, amazingly, sound very
similar to the false charges made against Iraq. One would think promoters of the war
against Iraq would be a little bit more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir
up hatred toward Iran. The American people and Congress should be more cautious in
accepting these charges at face value. Yet it seems the propaganda is working, since
few in Washington object as Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran and asking
for UN sanctions against her.
There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and initiate a
confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so, however.
Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and there's no evidence that she is working on
one ? only conjecture.
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and
North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than
these other countries?
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody ?
which would guarantee her own annihilation ? are zero. And the same goes for the
possibility that she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group.
Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular to the
North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons. But we
reward them just as we reward India.
We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran even though they have no nuclear weapons.
But listen to what a leading Israeli historian, Martin van Creveld, had to say about
this: "Obviously, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I don't know if
they're developing them, but if they're not developing them, they're crazy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld
There's been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran's nuclear program. This
distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions in Congress to pass
resolutions condemning her and promoting UN sanctions.
IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei has never reported any evidence of
"undeclared" sources or special nuclear material in Iran, or any diversion of nuclear
material.
We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is
asking them impossibly to prove a "negative". El Baradei states Iran is in compliance
with the nuclear NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement.
We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam had were supplied to him by the U.S., and
we refused to believe UN inspectors and the CIA that he no longer had them.
Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us. Now we're hysterically
wondering if someday she might decide to build a bomb in self-interest.
Anti-Iran voices, beating the drums of confrontation, distort the agreement made in
Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their suspension of
the enrichment process was voluntary, and not a legal obligation. Iran has an
absolute right under the NPT to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes,
and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT. It's the U.S. and her
allies that are distorting and violating the NPT. Likewise, our provision of nuclear
materials to India is a clear violation of the NPT.
The demand for UN sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by U.S. Congress. The
"Iran Freedom Support Act", H.R. 282
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-282), passed in the International
Relations Committee; recently, the House passed H. Con. Res. 341
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc109-341), which inaccurately
condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear nonproliferation obligations.
At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in U.S. Congress is minimal. Let
there be no doubt: The neoconservative warriors are still in charge and are
conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a preemptive attack on
Iran. Never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq is in civil war: serious
plans are being laid for the next distraction which will further spread this war in
the Middle East. The unintended consequences of this effort surely will be worse than
any of the complications experienced in the three-year occupation of Iraq.
Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and domestic individuals
who support the overthrow of the current Iranian government is fraught with danger
and saturated with arrogance. Imagine how American citizens would respond if China
supported similar efforts here in the United States to bring about regime change! How
many of us would remain complacent if someone like Timothy McVeigh had been financed
by a foreign power? Is it any wonder the Iranian people resent us and the attitude of
our leaders? Even though ElBaradei and his IAEA investigations have found no
violations of the NPT-required IAEA safeguards agreement, the "Iran Freedom Support
Act" (IFSA) still demands that Iran prove they have no nuclear weapons ? refusing to
acknowledge that proving a negative is impossible.
Let there be no doubt, though the words "regime change" are not found in the bill,
that's precisely what they are talking about. Neoconservative [Jew] Michael "P2"
Ledeen (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1261), one of the architects of the
Iraq fiasco, testifying before the International Relations Committee in favor of the
IFSA, stated it plainly: "I know some members would prefer to dance around the
explicit declaration of regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone
looking closely at the language and context of the IFSA and its close relative in the
Senate, can clearly see that this is in fact the essence of the matter. You can't
have freedom in Iran without bringing down the mullahs".
Sanctions, along with financial and political support to persons and groups dedicated
to the overthrow of the Iranian government, are acts of war. Once again, we're
unilaterally declaring a preemptive war against a country and a people that have not
harmed us and do not have the capacity to do so. And don't expect Congress to
seriously debate a declaration of war resolution. For the past 56 years, U.S.
Congress ["Israeli-occupied territory"] has transferred to the executive branch the
power to go to war as it pleases, regardless of the tragic results and costs.
Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift toward confrontation in Iran
policy as she insisted on $75 million to finance propaganda, through TV and radio
broadcasts into Iran. She expressed this need because of the so-called "aggressive"
policies of the Iranian government. We're seven thousand miles from home, telling the
Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of government they will have, backed up by the use
of our military force, and we call them the aggressors. We fail to realize the
Iranian people, for whatever faults they may have, have not in modern times aggressed
against any neighbor. This provocation is so unnecessary, costly, and dangerous.
Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of the Iranians,
military confrontation with Iran will have unintended consequences. The successful
alliance engendered between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shia will prove a
formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads. Shipping in the Persian
Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted by the Iranians in
retaliation for any military confrontation. Since Iran would be incapable of
defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that some might resort to a
terrorist attack on us. They will not passively lie down, nor can they be destroyed
easily.
One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure "our" oil supply. This
backfired badly: Production in Iraq is down 50%, and world oil prices have more than
doubled to $60 per barrel. Meddling with Iran could easily have a similar result. We
could see oil over $120 a barrel and $6 gas at the pump.
The obsession the neocons have with remaking the Middle East is hard to understand.
One thing that is easy to understand is none of those who planned these wars expect
to fight in them, nor do they expect their children to die in some IED explosion.
Exactly when an attack will occur is not known, but we have been forewarned more than
once that all options remain on the table. The sequence of events now occurring with
regards to Iran is eerily reminiscent of the hype prior to our preemptive strike
against Iraq. We should remember the saying: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me
twice, shame on me".
It looks to me like the U.S. Congress ["Israeli-occupied territory"] and the country
is open to being fooled once again.
Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq war are now highly critical of the
president, having been misled as to reasons for the invasion and occupation. But
these same people are only too eager to accept the same flawed arguments for our need
to undermine the Iranian government.
The president's 2006 National Security Strategy, just released
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006), is every bit as frightening as the one
released in 2002 endorsing preemptive war. In it he claims: "We face no greater
challenge from a single country than from Iran". He claims the Iranians have for 20
years hidden key nuclear activities ? though the IAEA makes no such assumptions, nor
has the Security Council in these 20 years ever sanctioned Iran. The clincher in the
National Security Strategy document is if diplomatic efforts fail, confrontation will
follow. The problem is, the diplomatic effort ? if one wants to use that term ? is
designed to fail by demanding the Iranians prove an unprovable negative. The West ?
led by the U.S. ? is in greater violation by demanding Iran not pursue any nuclear
technology, even peaceful, that the NPT guarantees is their right.
The president states that Iran's "desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable". A
"desire" is purely subjective, and cannot be substantiated nor disproved. Therefore,
all that is necessary to justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove it doesn't have
a "desire" to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France, Pakistan,
India, and Israel ? whose nuclear missiles surround Iran. Logic like this to justify
a new war, without the least consideration for a congressional declaration of war, is
indeed frightening.
Common sense tells us Congress, especially given the civil war in Iraq and the mess
in Afghanistan, should move with great caution in condoning a military confrontation
with Iran.
Cause for Concern
Most Americans are uninterested in foreign affairs until we get mired down in a war
that costs too much, last too long, and kills too many U.S. troops. Getting out of a
lengthy war is difficult, as I remember all too well with Vietnam while
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War) serving in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to
1968. Getting into war is much easier. Unfortunately, the legislative branch of our
government too often defers to the executive branch, and offers little resistance to
war plans even with no significant threat to our security. The need to go to war is
always couched in patriotic terms and falsehoods regarding an imaginary eminent
danger. Not supporting the effort is painted as unpatriotic and wimpish against some
evil that's about to engulf us. The real reason for our militarism is rarely
revealed, and is hidden from the public. Even Congress is deceived into supporting
adventurism they would not accept if fully informed.
If we accepted the traditional American and constitutional foreign policy of
nonintervention across the board, there would be no temptation to go along with these
unnecessary military operations. A foreign policy of intervention invites all kinds
of excuses for spreading ourselves around the world. The debate shifts from
nonintervention versus interventionism, to where and for what particular reason
should we involve ourselves. Most of the time, it's for less than honorable reasons.
Even when cloaked in honorable slogans ? like making the world safe for democracy ?
the unintended consequences and the ultimate costs cancel out the good intentions.
One of the greatest losses suffered these past 60 years from interventionism becoming
an acceptable policy of both major parties is respect for the Constitution. Congress
flatly has reneged on its huge responsibility to declare war. Going to war was never
meant to be an executive decision, used indiscriminately with no resistance from
Congress. The strongest attempt by Congress in the past 60 years to properly exert
itself over foreign policy was the passage of the Foley Amendment, demanding no
assistance be given to the Nicaraguan contras. Even this explicit prohibition was
flaunted by an earlier administration.
Arguing over the relative merits of each intervention is not a true debate, because
it assumes that intervention per se is both moral and constitutional. Arguing for a
Granada-type intervention because of its "success," and against the Iraq war because
of its failure and cost, is not enough. We must once again understand the wisdom of
rejecting entangling alliances and rejecting nation-building. We must stop trying to
police the world and instead embrace noninterventionism as the proper, moral, and
constitutional foreign policy.
The best reason to oppose interventionism is that people die, needlessly, on both
sides. We have suffered over 20,000 American casualties in Iraq already, and Iraq
civilian deaths probably number over 100,000 by all reasonable accounts. The next
best reason is that the rule of law is undermined, especially when military
interventions are carried out without a declaration of war. Whenever a war is
ongoing, civil liberties are under attack at home. The current war in Iraq and the
misnamed war on terror have created an environment here at home that affords little
constitutional protection of our citizen's rights. Extreme nationalism is common
during wars. Signs of this are now apparent.
Prolonged wars, as this one has become, have profound consequences. No matter how
much positive spin is put on it, war never makes a society wealthier. World War II
was not a solution to the Depression, as many claim. If a billion dollars is spent on
weapons of war, the GDP records positive growth in that amount. But the expenditure
is consumed by destruction of the weapons or bombs it bought, and the real economy is
denied $1 billion to produce products that would have raised someone's standard of
living.
Excessive spending to finance the war causes deficits to explode. There are never
enough tax dollars available to pay the bills, and since there are not enough willing
lenders and dollars available, the Federal Reserve must create enough new money and
credit for buying treasury bills to prevent interest rates from rising too rapidly.
Rising rates would tip off everyone that there are not enough savings or taxes to
finance the war. This willingness to print whatever amount of money the government
needs to pursue the war is literally inflation. Without a fiat monetary system, wars
would be very difficult to finance, since the people would never tolerate the taxes
required to pay for it. Inflation of the money supply delays and hides the real cost
of war. The result of the excessive creation of new money leads to the higher cost of
living everyone decries and the Fed denies. Since taxes are not levied, the increase
in prices that results from printing too much money is technically the tax required
to pay for the war.
The tragedy is that the inflation tax is borne more by the poor and the middle class
than by the rich. Meanwhile, the well-connected rich, the politicians, the
bureaucrats, the bankers, the military industrialists, and the international
corporations reap the benefits of war profits.
A sound economic process is disrupted with a war economy and monetary inflation.
Strong voices emerge blaming the wrong policies for our problems, prompting an outcry
for protectionist legislation. It's always easier to blame foreign producers and
savers for our inflation, lack of savings, excess debt, and loss of industrial jobs.
Protectionist measures only make economic conditions worse. Inevitably, these
conditions, if not corrected, lead to a lower standard of living for most of our
citizens.
Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil disturbance that results.
The chaos in the streets of America in the 1960s while the Vietnam War raged,
aggravated by the draft, was an example of domestic strife caused by an ill-advised,
unconstitutional war that could not be won. The early signs of civil discord are now
present. Hopefully, we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and avoid a conflict in Iran
before our streets explode as they did in the '60s.
In a way, it's amazing there's not a lot more outrage expressed by the American
people. There's plenty of complaining, but no outrage over policies that are not part
of our American tradition. War based on false pretenses, 20,000 American casualties,
torture policies, thousands jailed without due process, illegal surveillance of
citizens, warrantless searches, and yet no outrage. When the issues come before
Congress, executive authority is maintained or even strengthened while real oversight
is ignored.
Though many Americans are starting to feel the economic pain of paying for this war
through inflation, the real pain has not yet arrived. We generally remain fat and
happy, with a system of money and borrowing that postpones the day of reckoning.
Foreigners, in particular the Chinese and Japanese, gladly participate in the
charade. We print the money and they take it, as do the OPEC nations, and provide us
with consumer goods and oil. Then they loan the money back to us at low interest
rates, which we use to finance the war and our housing bubble and excessive
consumption. This recycling and perpetual borrowing of inflated dollars allows us to
avoid the pain of high taxes to pay for our war and welfare spending. It's fine until
the music stops and the real costs are realized, with much higher interest rates and
significant price inflation. That's when outrage will be heard, and the people will
realize we can't afford the "humanitarianism" of the neoconservatives.
The notion that our economic problems are principally due to the Chinese is nonsense.
If the protectionists were to have their way, the problem of financing the war would
become readily apparent and have immediate ramifications ? none good. Today's
economic problems, caused largely by our funny money system, won't be solved by
altering exchange rates to favor us in the short run, or by imposing high tariffs.
Only sound money with real value will solve the problems of competing currency
devaluations and protectionist measures.
Economic interests almost always are major reasons for wars being fought. Noble and
patriotic causes are easier to sell to a public who must pay and provide cannon
fodder to defend the financial interests of a privileged class.
The fact that Saddam demanded euros for oil in an attempt to undermine the U.S.
dollar is believed by many to be one of the ulterior motives for our invasion and
occupation of Iraq.
Similarly, the Iranian oil bourse (http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html) now
about to open may be seen as a threat to those who depend on maintaining the current
monetary system with the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html
The theory and significance of "peak oil" (http://www.hubbertpeak.com) is believed to
be an additional motivating factor for the U.S. and Great Britain wanting to maintain
firm control over the oil supplies in the Middle East. The two nations have been
protecting "our" oil interests in the Middle East for nearly a hundred years.
With diminishing supplies and expanding demands, the incentive to maintain a military
presence in the Middle East is quite strong. Fear of China and Russia moving into
this region to assume more control alarms those who don't understand how a free
market can develop substitutes to replace diminishing resources. Supporters of the
military effort to maintain control over large regions of the world to protect oil
fail to count the real costs once the DoD budget is factored in. Remember, invading
Iraq was costly and oil prices doubled. Confrontation in Iran may evolve differently,
but we can be sure it will be costly and oil prices will rise.
There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of intervention
around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence
of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini's success in
taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing
Mossadegh in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and
never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous
interventionism is to us and to our security.
There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, and instead
believe the propaganda: Iran and her president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are thoroughly
irresponsible and have threatened to destroy Israel. So all measures must be taken to
prevent Iran from getting nukes ? thus the campaign to intimidate and confront Iran.
First, Iran doesn't have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according to the
CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation
by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to
reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the
Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you're looking for a real
kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we
negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up
until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability.
Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance ? though someday
Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al-Qaeda government put in place. We have
been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring
Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it's a very costly and dangerous
policy.
The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It's in our best interest to
pursue a foreign policy of nonintervention. A strict interpretation of the
Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no
matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business. The
principle of self-determination should be respected. Strict nonintervention removes
the incentives for foreign powers and corporate interests to influence our policies
overseas. We can't afford the cost that intervention requires, whether through higher
taxes or inflation. If the moral arguments against intervention don't suffice for
some, the practical arguments should.
Intervention just doesn't work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American citizens
both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually
diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the superpower of
the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly
undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner.
Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today's liberals have
all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy. There's no
reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the case for a
pro-American, non-militant, noninterventionist foreign policy dealing with all
nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy, is far
superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years.
It's time for a change.
* Dr. Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul.org) is a Republican Congressman from Texas
(http://www.house.gov/paul). He was the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for
President.
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8821
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: "End nuke program or else, Bolton warns"
- Next by Date: Re: @@ Meet the President @@
- Previous by thread: "End nuke program or else, Bolton warns"
- Next by thread: Re: @@ Dr. Ron Paul, Republican Congressman: It's time to FREE the U.S. Congress ("Israeli-occupied territory") @@
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
