I am a big supporter of Ron Paul and many of his ideas.
I'm not so sure it is a good idea to raise these questions while we have troops in the field.
What do you guys think?
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 26, 2005
What If (It was all a Big Mistake)?
America's policy of foreign intervention, while still debated in the early
20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both political
parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error
in judgment? Not just bad judgment regarding when and where to impose
ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moral right to meddle in
the affairs of others?
Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting-- hundreds of thousands
of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian
casualties, and unbelievable human and economic costs. What if it was all
needlessly borne by the American people? If we do conclude that grave
foreign policy errors have been made, a very serious question must be asked:
What would it take to change our policy to one more compatible with a true
republic's goal of peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations? Is it
not possible that Washington's admonition to avoid entangling alliances is
sound advice even today?
In medicine mistakes are made-- man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are made,
incorrect treatments are given, and experimental trials of medicines are
advocated. A good physician understands the imperfections in medical care,
advises close follow-ups, and double-checks the diagnosis, treatment, and
medication.
Adjustments are made to assure the best results. But what if a doctor never
checks the success or failure of a treatment, or ignores bad results and
assumes his omnipotence-- refusing to concede that the initial course of
treatment was a mistake? Let me assure you, the results would not be good.
Litigation and the loss of reputation in the medical community place
restraints on this type of bullheaded behavior.
Sadly, though, when governments, politicians, and bureaucrats make mistakes
and refuse to reexamine them, there is little the victims can do to correct
things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propaganda machine are
instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, the final truth emerges
slowly, and only after much suffering. The arrogance of some politicians,
regulators, and diplomats actually causes them to become even more
aggressive and more determined to prove themselves right, to prove their
power is not to be messed with by never admitting a mistake. Truly, power
corrupts!
The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreign intervention,
despite obvious failures and shortcomings over the last 50 years, has
brought great harm to our country and our liberty. Historically, financial
realities are the ultimate check on nations bent on empire. Economic laws
ultimately prevail over bad judgment. But tragically, the greater the wealth
of a country, the longer the flawed policy lasts. We'll probably not be any
different.
We are still a wealthy nation, and our currency is still trusted by the
world, yet we are vulnerable to some harsh realities about our true wealth
and the burden of our future commitments. Overwhelming debt and the
precarious nature of the dollar should serve to restrain our determined
leaders, yet they show little concern for deficits. Rest assured, though,
the limitations of our endless foreign adventurism and spending will become
apparent to everyone at some point in time.
Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into efforts ostensibly
designed to make us safer. Many laws have been passed and many dollars have
been spent. Whether or not we're better off is another question.
Today we occupy two countries in the Middle East. We have suffered over
20,000 casualties, and caused possibly 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq.
We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as hundreds of
billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer. We've created the
Department of Homeland Security, passed the Patriot Act, and created a new
super CIA agency.
Our government now is permitted to monitor the Internet, to read our mail,
to search us without proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card,
and to investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal
aliens flow into our country and qualify for driving licenses and welfare
benefits with little restraint.
These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us as
the authoritarianism we accept at the airport. The creation of the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has intruded on the privacy of
all airline travelers, and there is little evidence that we are safer for
it. Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice
liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security,
unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty.
Unchecked fear of another 9/11-type attack constantly preoccupies our
leaders and most of our citizens, and drives the legislative attack on our
civil liberties. It's frightening to see us doing to ourselves what even bin
Laden never dreamed he could accomplish with his suicide bombers.
We don't understand the difference between a vague threat of terrorism and
the danger of a guerilla war. One prompts us to expand and nationalize
domestic law enforcement while limiting the freedoms of all Americans. The
other deals with understanding terrorists like bin Laden, who declared war
against us in 1998. Not understanding the difference makes it virtually
impossible to deal with the real threats. We are obsessed with passing new
laws to make our country safe from a terrorist attack. This confusion about
the cause of the 9/11 attacks, the fear they engendered, and the willingness
to sacrifice liberty prompts many to declare their satisfaction with the
inconveniences and even humiliation at our nation's airports.
There are always those in government who are anxious to increase its power
and authority over the people. Strict adherence to personal privacy annoys
those who promote a centralized state.
It's no surprise to learn that many of the new laws passed in the aftermath
of 9/11 had been proposed long before that date. The attacks merely provided
an excuse to do many things previously proposed by dedicated statists.
All too often government acts perversely, professing to advance liberty
while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed since 9/11
promise to protect our freedoms and our security. In time we will realize
there is little chance our security will be enhanced or our liberties
protected.
The powerful and intrusive TSA certainly will not solve our problems.
Without a full discussion, greater understanding, and ultimately a change in
the foreign policy that incites those who declared war against us, no amount
of pat-downs at airports will suffice. Imagine the harm done, the staggering
costs, and the loss of liberty if the next 20 years pass and airplanes are
never employed by terrorists. Even if there is a possibility that airplanes
will be used to terrorize us, TSA's bullying will do little to prevent it.
Patting down old women and little kids in airports cannot possibly make us
safer!
TSA cannot protect us from another attack and it is not the solution. It
serves only to make us all more obedient and complacent toward government
intrusions into our lives.
The airport mess has been compounded by other problems, which we fail to
recognize. Most assume the government has the greatest responsibility for
making private aircraft travel safe. But this assumption only ignores
mistakes made before 9/11, when the government taught us to not resist,
taught us that airline personnel could not carry guns, and that the
government would be in charge of security. Airline owners became complacent
and dependent upon the government.
After 9/11 we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total government
control and a political takeover by the TSA-- which was completely contrary
to the proposition that private owners have the ultimate responsibility to
protect their customers.
Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fuel the
Transportation Secretary's near obsession with avoiding the appearance of
discrimination toward young Muslim males. Instead TSA seemingly targets
white children and old women. We have failed to recognize that a safety
policy by a private airline is quite a different thing from government
agents blindly obeying anti-discrimination laws.
Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination, such as that
which led to incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However,
local law-enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if
the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race, or religion.
We are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on
airplanes. The federal government should not be involved in local law
enforcement, and has no right to discriminate. Airlines, on the other hand,
should be permitted to do whatever is necessary to provide safety. Private
firms-- long denied the right-- should have a right to discriminate. Fine
restaurants, for example, can require that shoes and shirts be worn for
service in their establishments. The logic of this remaining property right
should permit more sensible security checks at airports. The airlines should
be responsible for the safety of their property, and liable for it as well.
This is not only the responsibility of the airlines, but it is a civil right
that has long been denied them and other private companies.
The present situation requires the government to punish some by targeting
those individuals who clearly offer no threat. Any airline that tries to
make travel safer and happens to question a larger number of young Muslim
males than the government deems appropriate can be assessed huge fines. To
add insult to injury, the fines collected from airlines are used for forced
sensitivity training of pilots who do their very best, under the
circumstances, to make flying safer by restricting the travel of some
individuals. We have embarked on a process that serves no logical purpose.
While airline safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished and costs
skyrocket.
If we're willing to consider a different foreign policy, we should ask
ourselves a few questions:
1. What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances,
policing the world, nation building, and spreading our values through force
are deeply flawed?
2. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass
destruction?
3. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never
allies?
4. What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to
enhance our national security?
5. What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of
our client oil states in the region?
6. What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American
troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq war, and 9% of
our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?
7. What if it turns out there are many more guerrilla fighters in Iraq than
our government admits?
8. What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some
claim, and what is an acceptable price for "doing good?"
9. What if Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and things become
worse under a Defense Secretary who demands more troops and an expansion of
the war?
10. What if we discover that, when they do vote, the overwhelming majority
of Iraqis support Islamic (Sharia) law over western secular law, and want
our troops removed?
11. What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq
are never asked for their opinion of what should be done now?
12. What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into three
separate regions, recognizing the principle of self-determination while
rejecting the artificial boundaries created in 1918 by non-Iraqis?
13. What if it turns out radical Muslims don't hate us for our freedoms, but
rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs and
Muslims?
14. What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from
pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden?
15. What if we discover that democracy can't be spread with force of arms?
16. What if democracy is deeply flawed, and instead we should be talking
about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized
government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted
through persuasion, not force?
17. What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and
occupation of Arab/Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us, and
it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?
18. What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to
terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?
19. What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually
recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and their warnings
were ignored or denied?
20. What if the argument that by fighting over there, we won't have to fight
here, is wrong, and the opposite is true?
21. What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?
22. What if the principle of pre-emptive war is adopted by Russia, China,
Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, "justified" by current U.S. policy?
23. What if pre-emptive war and pre-emptive guilt stem from the same flawed
policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?
24. What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally, and turns on us when
conditions deteriorate?
25. What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions
that would be used to justify a military response and pre-emptive war
against them?
26. What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails, and ends
up fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret-- an alliance not
achieved even at the height of the Cold War?
27. What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is
deeply flawed?
28. What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial
leads to the total undermining of constitutional protections for American
citizens when arrested?
29. What if we discover the army is too small to continue policies of
pre-emption and nation-building? What if a military draft is the only way to
mobilize enough troops?
30. What if the "stop-loss" program is actually an egregious violation of
trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers? What if
it actually is a backdoor draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion
against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and
women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political
leadership running the war?
31. What if the Pentagon's legal task-force opinion that the President is
not bound by international or federal law regarding torture stands
unchallenged, and sets a precedent which ultimately harms Americans, while
totally disregarding the moral, practical, and legal arguments against such
a policy?
32. What if the intelligence reform legislation-- which gives us bigger,
more expensive bureaucracy-- doesn't bolster our security, and distracts us
from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?
33. What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors, and we are losing an
unwinnable guerrilla war?
34. What if we discover, too late, that we can't afford this war-- and that
our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest
rates, and a severe economic downturn?
Why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the #1 function
of the federal government-- to provide for national security-- has been
severely undermined. On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14 aircraft in place to
protect the entire U.S. mainland, all of which proved useless that day. We
have an annual DOD budget of over $400 billion, most of which is spent
overseas in over 100 different countries. On 9/11 our Air Force was better
positioned to protect Seoul, Tokyo, Berlin, and London than it was to
protect Washington D.C. and New York City.
Moreover, our ill-advised presence in the Middle East and our decade-long
bombing of Iraq served only to incite the suicidal attacks of 9/11.
Before 9/11 our CIA ineptly pursued bin Laden, whom the Taliban was
protecting. At the same time, the Taliban was receiving significant support
from Pakistan-- our "trusted ally" that received millions of dollars from
the United States. We allied ourselves with both bin Laden and Hussein in
the 1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s. And it's safe to say we have used
billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the last 50 years pursuing this
contradictory, irrational, foolish, costly, and very dangerous foreign
policy.
Policing the world, spreading democracy by force, nation building, and
frequent bombing of countries that pose no threat to us-- while leaving the
homeland and our borders unprotected-- result from a foreign policy that is
contradictory and not in our self interest.
I hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to these
concerns. If I'm completely wrong in my criticisms, nothing is lost except
my time and energy expended in efforts to get others to reconsider our
foreign policy.
But the bigger question is:
What if I'm right, or even partially right, and we urgently need to change
course in our foreign policy for the sake of our national and economic
security, yet no one pays attention?
For that a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?
I'm not so sure it is a good idea to raise these questions while we have troops in the field.
What do you guys think?
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 26, 2005
What If (It was all a Big Mistake)?
America's policy of foreign intervention, while still debated in the early
20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both political
parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error
in judgment? Not just bad judgment regarding when and where to impose
ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moral right to meddle in
the affairs of others?
Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting-- hundreds of thousands
of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian
casualties, and unbelievable human and economic costs. What if it was all
needlessly borne by the American people? If we do conclude that grave
foreign policy errors have been made, a very serious question must be asked:
What would it take to change our policy to one more compatible with a true
republic's goal of peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations? Is it
not possible that Washington's admonition to avoid entangling alliances is
sound advice even today?
In medicine mistakes are made-- man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are made,
incorrect treatments are given, and experimental trials of medicines are
advocated. A good physician understands the imperfections in medical care,
advises close follow-ups, and double-checks the diagnosis, treatment, and
medication.
Adjustments are made to assure the best results. But what if a doctor never
checks the success or failure of a treatment, or ignores bad results and
assumes his omnipotence-- refusing to concede that the initial course of
treatment was a mistake? Let me assure you, the results would not be good.
Litigation and the loss of reputation in the medical community place
restraints on this type of bullheaded behavior.
Sadly, though, when governments, politicians, and bureaucrats make mistakes
and refuse to reexamine them, there is little the victims can do to correct
things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propaganda machine are
instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, the final truth emerges
slowly, and only after much suffering. The arrogance of some politicians,
regulators, and diplomats actually causes them to become even more
aggressive and more determined to prove themselves right, to prove their
power is not to be messed with by never admitting a mistake. Truly, power
corrupts!
The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreign intervention,
despite obvious failures and shortcomings over the last 50 years, has
brought great harm to our country and our liberty. Historically, financial
realities are the ultimate check on nations bent on empire. Economic laws
ultimately prevail over bad judgment. But tragically, the greater the wealth
of a country, the longer the flawed policy lasts. We'll probably not be any
different.
We are still a wealthy nation, and our currency is still trusted by the
world, yet we are vulnerable to some harsh realities about our true wealth
and the burden of our future commitments. Overwhelming debt and the
precarious nature of the dollar should serve to restrain our determined
leaders, yet they show little concern for deficits. Rest assured, though,
the limitations of our endless foreign adventurism and spending will become
apparent to everyone at some point in time.
Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into efforts ostensibly
designed to make us safer. Many laws have been passed and many dollars have
been spent. Whether or not we're better off is another question.
Today we occupy two countries in the Middle East. We have suffered over
20,000 casualties, and caused possibly 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq.
We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as hundreds of
billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer. We've created the
Department of Homeland Security, passed the Patriot Act, and created a new
super CIA agency.
Our government now is permitted to monitor the Internet, to read our mail,
to search us without proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card,
and to investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal
aliens flow into our country and qualify for driving licenses and welfare
benefits with little restraint.
These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us as
the authoritarianism we accept at the airport. The creation of the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has intruded on the privacy of
all airline travelers, and there is little evidence that we are safer for
it. Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice
liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security,
unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty.
Unchecked fear of another 9/11-type attack constantly preoccupies our
leaders and most of our citizens, and drives the legislative attack on our
civil liberties. It's frightening to see us doing to ourselves what even bin
Laden never dreamed he could accomplish with his suicide bombers.
We don't understand the difference between a vague threat of terrorism and
the danger of a guerilla war. One prompts us to expand and nationalize
domestic law enforcement while limiting the freedoms of all Americans. The
other deals with understanding terrorists like bin Laden, who declared war
against us in 1998. Not understanding the difference makes it virtually
impossible to deal with the real threats. We are obsessed with passing new
laws to make our country safe from a terrorist attack. This confusion about
the cause of the 9/11 attacks, the fear they engendered, and the willingness
to sacrifice liberty prompts many to declare their satisfaction with the
inconveniences and even humiliation at our nation's airports.
There are always those in government who are anxious to increase its power
and authority over the people. Strict adherence to personal privacy annoys
those who promote a centralized state.
It's no surprise to learn that many of the new laws passed in the aftermath
of 9/11 had been proposed long before that date. The attacks merely provided
an excuse to do many things previously proposed by dedicated statists.
All too often government acts perversely, professing to advance liberty
while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed since 9/11
promise to protect our freedoms and our security. In time we will realize
there is little chance our security will be enhanced or our liberties
protected.
The powerful and intrusive TSA certainly will not solve our problems.
Without a full discussion, greater understanding, and ultimately a change in
the foreign policy that incites those who declared war against us, no amount
of pat-downs at airports will suffice. Imagine the harm done, the staggering
costs, and the loss of liberty if the next 20 years pass and airplanes are
never employed by terrorists. Even if there is a possibility that airplanes
will be used to terrorize us, TSA's bullying will do little to prevent it.
Patting down old women and little kids in airports cannot possibly make us
safer!
TSA cannot protect us from another attack and it is not the solution. It
serves only to make us all more obedient and complacent toward government
intrusions into our lives.
The airport mess has been compounded by other problems, which we fail to
recognize. Most assume the government has the greatest responsibility for
making private aircraft travel safe. But this assumption only ignores
mistakes made before 9/11, when the government taught us to not resist,
taught us that airline personnel could not carry guns, and that the
government would be in charge of security. Airline owners became complacent
and dependent upon the government.
After 9/11 we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total government
control and a political takeover by the TSA-- which was completely contrary
to the proposition that private owners have the ultimate responsibility to
protect their customers.
Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fuel the
Transportation Secretary's near obsession with avoiding the appearance of
discrimination toward young Muslim males. Instead TSA seemingly targets
white children and old women. We have failed to recognize that a safety
policy by a private airline is quite a different thing from government
agents blindly obeying anti-discrimination laws.
Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination, such as that
which led to incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However,
local law-enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if
the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race, or religion.
We are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on
airplanes. The federal government should not be involved in local law
enforcement, and has no right to discriminate. Airlines, on the other hand,
should be permitted to do whatever is necessary to provide safety. Private
firms-- long denied the right-- should have a right to discriminate. Fine
restaurants, for example, can require that shoes and shirts be worn for
service in their establishments. The logic of this remaining property right
should permit more sensible security checks at airports. The airlines should
be responsible for the safety of their property, and liable for it as well.
This is not only the responsibility of the airlines, but it is a civil right
that has long been denied them and other private companies.
The present situation requires the government to punish some by targeting
those individuals who clearly offer no threat. Any airline that tries to
make travel safer and happens to question a larger number of young Muslim
males than the government deems appropriate can be assessed huge fines. To
add insult to injury, the fines collected from airlines are used for forced
sensitivity training of pilots who do their very best, under the
circumstances, to make flying safer by restricting the travel of some
individuals. We have embarked on a process that serves no logical purpose.
While airline safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished and costs
skyrocket.
If we're willing to consider a different foreign policy, we should ask
ourselves a few questions:
1. What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances,
policing the world, nation building, and spreading our values through force
are deeply flawed?
2. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass
destruction?
3. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never
allies?
4. What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to
enhance our national security?
5. What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of
our client oil states in the region?
6. What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American
troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq war, and 9% of
our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?
7. What if it turns out there are many more guerrilla fighters in Iraq than
our government admits?
8. What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some
claim, and what is an acceptable price for "doing good?"
9. What if Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and things become
worse under a Defense Secretary who demands more troops and an expansion of
the war?
10. What if we discover that, when they do vote, the overwhelming majority
of Iraqis support Islamic (Sharia) law over western secular law, and want
our troops removed?
11. What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq
are never asked for their opinion of what should be done now?
12. What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into three
separate regions, recognizing the principle of self-determination while
rejecting the artificial boundaries created in 1918 by non-Iraqis?
13. What if it turns out radical Muslims don't hate us for our freedoms, but
rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs and
Muslims?
14. What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from
pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden?
15. What if we discover that democracy can't be spread with force of arms?
16. What if democracy is deeply flawed, and instead we should be talking
about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized
government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted
through persuasion, not force?
17. What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and
occupation of Arab/Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us, and
it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?
18. What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to
terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?
19. What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually
recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and their warnings
were ignored or denied?
20. What if the argument that by fighting over there, we won't have to fight
here, is wrong, and the opposite is true?
21. What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?
22. What if the principle of pre-emptive war is adopted by Russia, China,
Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, "justified" by current U.S. policy?
23. What if pre-emptive war and pre-emptive guilt stem from the same flawed
policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?
24. What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally, and turns on us when
conditions deteriorate?
25. What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions
that would be used to justify a military response and pre-emptive war
against them?
26. What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails, and ends
up fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret-- an alliance not
achieved even at the height of the Cold War?
27. What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is
deeply flawed?
28. What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial
leads to the total undermining of constitutional protections for American
citizens when arrested?
29. What if we discover the army is too small to continue policies of
pre-emption and nation-building? What if a military draft is the only way to
mobilize enough troops?
30. What if the "stop-loss" program is actually an egregious violation of
trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers? What if
it actually is a backdoor draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion
against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and
women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political
leadership running the war?
31. What if the Pentagon's legal task-force opinion that the President is
not bound by international or federal law regarding torture stands
unchallenged, and sets a precedent which ultimately harms Americans, while
totally disregarding the moral, practical, and legal arguments against such
a policy?
32. What if the intelligence reform legislation-- which gives us bigger,
more expensive bureaucracy-- doesn't bolster our security, and distracts us
from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?
33. What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors, and we are losing an
unwinnable guerrilla war?
34. What if we discover, too late, that we can't afford this war-- and that
our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest
rates, and a severe economic downturn?
Why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the #1 function
of the federal government-- to provide for national security-- has been
severely undermined. On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14 aircraft in place to
protect the entire U.S. mainland, all of which proved useless that day. We
have an annual DOD budget of over $400 billion, most of which is spent
overseas in over 100 different countries. On 9/11 our Air Force was better
positioned to protect Seoul, Tokyo, Berlin, and London than it was to
protect Washington D.C. and New York City.
Moreover, our ill-advised presence in the Middle East and our decade-long
bombing of Iraq served only to incite the suicidal attacks of 9/11.
Before 9/11 our CIA ineptly pursued bin Laden, whom the Taliban was
protecting. At the same time, the Taliban was receiving significant support
from Pakistan-- our "trusted ally" that received millions of dollars from
the United States. We allied ourselves with both bin Laden and Hussein in
the 1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s. And it's safe to say we have used
billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the last 50 years pursuing this
contradictory, irrational, foolish, costly, and very dangerous foreign
policy.
Policing the world, spreading democracy by force, nation building, and
frequent bombing of countries that pose no threat to us-- while leaving the
homeland and our borders unprotected-- result from a foreign policy that is
contradictory and not in our self interest.
I hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to these
concerns. If I'm completely wrong in my criticisms, nothing is lost except
my time and energy expended in efforts to get others to reconsider our
foreign policy.
But the bigger question is:
What if I'm right, or even partially right, and we urgently need to change
course in our foreign policy for the sake of our national and economic
security, yet no one pays attention?
For that a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?
instead of the $**t we got!!! 
