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 who 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.
December 14, 2004
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of
Congress from Texas.
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.