Expressing Grave Concern of Congress Regarding Occupation of Republic of Lebanon by Syrian Arab Republic
EXPRESSING GRAVE CONCERN OF CONGRESS REGARDING OCCUPATION OF REPUBLIC OF LEBANON BY SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC -- (House of Representatives - March 16, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time in opposition to this resolution not so much to object to the well-intended notions of the gentlewoman and the promotion of freedom and liberty. It is just that I do not think this is going to achieve it. As a matter of fact, when we pursue resolutions like this and a more aggressive foreign policy of telling other countries what to do, I see it as more of a threat to our security rather than helping our security.
I, for one, would admit I personally do not know what is best for the Lebanese and the Syrians, the Iraqis, or anybody else in the region; but I would argue the case that traditionally in this country up until probably the past 100 years, we took a different position on foreign policy. We took a position of nonintervention, one where we strived for neutrality, and we argued the case that we did not have any business in the internal affairs of other nations. No matter how well intended, there always seem to be ramifications. There seem to be unintended consequences. There seems to be a condition called "blow-back," where it comes back and ends up where we suffer more than anybody else.
For instance, we are in Iraq right now with all these good intentions. We have been there for a couple of years. We have spent over $200 billion, and this week they came out with a survey and they talked about the most dangerous city in the world and where security is the worst, and that city is not Beirut.
In the last 2 years, every one of us would have rather have been in Beirut than we would have been in Iraq. And yet we have 140,000 troops there protecting the Iraqis and promoting freedom and liberty and elections, and it sounds good. But I think if we are honest with ourselves, the results are not nearly as wonderful as we would like them to be.
The other thing that concerns me is that we lose credibility when we talk about what we want and what we will impose on other nations, because when we are claiming that the Lebanese cannot possibly have elections with the presence of foreign troops, at the same time we daily hear the bragging about the great election in Iraq where we had these 140,000 troops and total martial law in order for an election to take place. I am all for the elections, and I am a strong supporter of self-determination; but I do not correlate that with our policies.
We saw demonstrations, first a little at a demonstration orchestrated in support of getting Syria out of Lebanon, and then there was a response to that where 500,000 showed up supporting Hezbollah claiming they supported Syria, and then of course following that there was a much bigger demonstration. So the people have had freedom to express themselves. But the one thing about all the demonstrations, we never saw a sign that said, America, come save us, come in here, tell us what to do, tell us what to do with our elections. They have had elections going on for you in Lebanon without any violence directed against Syrian troops as we see daily in Iraq. They have an election coming up in May. It has been scheduled all along. It is not like they have been avoiding them.
We complain a lot about the Syrians being there, and if I have a personal preference, since I believe in self-determination, I would have the troops out just as I would have our troops out of most other places. But I would have foreign troops out of the Golan Heights. Why are we so excited about the Syrian troops, who were invited by the Lebanese Government? Why are we not excited about foreign troops in the Golan Heights and in the over 100 countries where that we have troops?
So I think we lose credibility. I think the Arab people just laugh at us and say, oh, yes, they are for these wonderful elections, and they have got to get these troops out; and at the same time we have troops all over the place.
The Syrians went into Lebanon in 1976, and if we go back and look at history, it was at the urging of the Government of the United States because there was about to be an election. And at that time, it was perceived that the election would undermine the minorities, the Christians and the Druse. So, therefore, it was in our interest at that time to interfere with the election, just as we have interfered so many times since then over the world.
Just think of the elected leader in 1953 in Iran, the elected leader, Mossadeq. But he did not follow what we wanted him to do with regards to oil. So what did we do? We sent in the CIA. We overthrew him, and then we had our puppet government, the Shah, for 25 years, which did nothing more than provide fodder for the radicals, and we radicalized the ayatollahs against us.
In a conversation with a veteran of the CIA, an expert in this region, he explained, at least he sincerely believed, that we did a tremendous favor for Osama bin Laden, and that is to go into Iraq, expose ourselves, and then create the chaos of Iraq. Where there was no al Qaeda before, it is now a haven for al Qaeda.
It has served as a recruiting ground for al Qaeda. So no matter how well the intentions are, we should look at the conclusions; what finally happens.
Our problem very simply comes from the violation of the basic principle that we should follow, and that is that we should be friends with nations and trade with nations, and that we should be neutral in foreign affairs, because it does not serve our interests. It costs a lot of money and it costs a lot of credibility and it costs a lot of lives.
Just think of what the interference in Iraq has cost us: Over 1,500 men; over 11,000 battle casualties, with another 9,000 sent home because of illness; and over $200 billion. And there is no end in sight. Today we had to pass another $82 billion, which was not put into the budget, to continue this process. My argument is it comes not because we make a misjudgment, not that this resolution is simply a misjudgment of the day; it just is that is part of the misjudgments that we have made now for many, many decades in overall foreign policy.
It is fully endorsed. The American people certainly have not been up in arms about it and have endorsed it, along with the large majority in the Congress. But long term it does not work. Just look how long the American people supported Vietnam, until finally they had to throw up their arms and demand an end to the senseless war.
But, ultimately, not only do the people get very angry and upset and frustrated with the loss of life, there are economic limitations to this as well, and that is something that I do not think anybody here hardly pays any attention to; that is how long can we continue to spend this money and not have this come back to really haunt us economically? The 1960s came back to haunt us in the 1970s, and the basic financial condition of this country is much worse than it was in the 1970s. Yet there is no hesitation.
I see resolutions like this as not restraint, but encouragement, without looking back and seeing how we participated in contributing to the problems that we have in the Middle East. So I am making the suggestion, why do we not think about overall policy with consistency, and think almost what is in our best interests?
I would like to read a quote from Ronald Reagan, because he was involved in Lebanon and our government was involved in the early 1980s. In his memoirs he admits it was a serious mistake, and we ought to take advice from Ronald Reagan on what he said about his misadventure in Lebanon. We were in there in 1983. This is what he writes in his memoirs several years later.
"Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry into paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have."
Further quoting Ronald Reagan, "In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave ..... yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policies there."
He concluded with advising us to stay clear. I would like to suggest that I believe that is pretty good advice.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few points regarding the unintended consequences of our foreign policy, as well as what might happen in Lebanon.
It has been said about our administration that we hope the Lebanese people will be able to express their view at the ballot box through free elections without interference and outside intimidation. That sounds like a pretty good suggestion, with the conclusion by the administration that when there is outside interference the elections are unreliable.
Once again, I ask the question, does that not raise the question of whether or not the elections in Iraq are as reliable, as is supposed?
Also, President Bush said that these elections must take place without external forces, and all the troops must be out. The UN resolution calls for the troops out as well as the security forces, but the resolution also calls for disarming the people of Lebanon.
In other words, this resolution takes the position that we should go in Lebanon and repeal the Lebanese Second Amendment rights so that nobody has any guns. I just see that as an interference that is going to lead to trouble.
We see civil strife precipitating a civil war in Iraq, and I think what our involvement here now is liable to lead to that type of situation, rather than peace and prosperity and elections.
It is said that this has all come out from the murder and killing of Hariri, and most people now just assume that the government of Syria had something to do with that. Yet there is no evidence for that. There is absolutely zero benefit for the Syrian government to have killed Hariri.
But there is a theory that some of the radical Muslims in Syria that object to Assad, because he is too moderate, because he endorsed the Persian Gulf War and because he takes some of our prisoners and he participates in the interrogations of our prisoners, that he is seen as too liberal, too friendly with the West, and some suppose that that could have been the reason that the murder had occurred, believing that it would bring down the government of Assad.
Now, that could be an unintended consequence, that consequence that could have a great deal of significance, and that is that the radicals end up taking over, some individuals more radical than Assad, end up taking over Syria, which is always the possibility. But too often these unintended consequences occur and then we do not know how to respond to them.
In Iraq in January of this year there was some polling done, an expression by the people on what they thought about foreign occupation. Eighty-two percent of the Sunnis, I guess understandably so, said that all foreign troops ought to leave, and 69 percent of the Shiites said all foreign troops ought to leave. I wonder why that is not important to anybody?
Instead, we are talking about occupation for years, about building 14 bases in Iraq. How long do we stay in these countries and why is it so necessary for us to be telling other people what to do and when to do it and how to do it and stirring up nothing but anti-American sentiment, while at the same time, even though our goals may be well-intentioned, they are never achieved? We just do not achieve them. And to think that the election under the conditions that we are condemning in Lebanon is the salvation, is the evidence that we are having tremendous achievement, I think is something that we are just pulling the wool over our eyes.
John Adams gave us some pretty good advice about what we should do overseas. And I think that when we have resolutions like this, and we do have them continuously, and we have done them for decades. It was a preliminary to our invasion of Iraq starting specifically in 1988; But Adams advised, he made a suggestion and he made a statement, he says: "America goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy."
That statement is so appropriate. It looks like we are just looking for problems; and since the results are so poor and we cannot afford it, once again, I want to state my position that I am suggesting not so much that I know or we know exactly what is best for other people. It is that precisely we do not know and we do not have the authority, the moral, the legal, the constitutional authority to do what we do. And besides, it is a threat to our national security.
Jefferson's suggestion was for peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations and entangling alliances with none. And we have way too many entangling alliances, making these huge commitments which will come to an end not because anybody is going to pay much attention to what I say, but they will come to an end because this country is on the verge of bankruptcy.
We cannot continue to raise our national debt by $650 billion a year and pretend that we can police the world and at the same time increase entitlements here at home. So one day we will have to face up to these realities, and it will all come to an end.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one point about the resolution. The statement toward the ends says: The President should direct the United States Representative to the United Nations to present and secure reports for the United Nations Security Council classifying Lebanon as a captive country in calling for the immediate release of Lebanese detainees in Syria and Lebanon.
Now that is pretty interesting that we are going to tell them who they can release and who they should release. But the question I have, and maybe the sponsors of the resolution could answer this: Will that include that we insist that they release the prisoners that we have sent to Syria?
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov