Who's Better Off?
By Rep. Ron Paul, MD
4-7-5

...before the US House of Representatives, April 6, 2005.

Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of
the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the
war, the retort is: "Aren't the people of Iraq better off?" The
insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about
supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every
ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of
whether the Iraqis are better off is that it's too early to
declare, "Mission Accomplished." But more importantly, we should be
asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it
legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results,
if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends
justify the means?

The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There
were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate
in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies
and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not
threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were
told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to
declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN
resolutions as justification for our invasion. After the fact we're
now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread
democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone who questions
the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein,
disapproving of democracy, or "supporting terrorists." It's implied
that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and
doesn't support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step
with the consensus or be ostracized.

However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam
Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own
government that led to the regime change. In time it will become
clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war
and interventionist nation-building will have much greater
significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. The
interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the
purported benefits of Saddam Hussein's removal from power. The real
question ought to be: "Are we better off with a foreign policy that
promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?"
Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those
who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national
security is threatened.

How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of
former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city
flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not
better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street,
curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead
Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not
better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in
some cold grave.

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of
the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a
foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a
farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in
Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn't always good
for the gander?

Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the
consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not
create freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved
first and elections followed - not the other way around.

One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the
vote, but such an outcome couldn't be allowed for it would preclude a
coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and
preventing a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the statement
made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite
theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us
that would not happen. Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying
up a bit when we don't like the results.

Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being
surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of
Baghdad are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war will break
out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it's already underway.

We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to
provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds
of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some have
justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990
because of a need to protect "our" oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein
is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline
at the pumps is reaching record highs approaching $3 per gallon.

Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no
government in place and the next election - supposedly the real one -
is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any
idea who really won the dubious election at all?

The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by
corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq. Already
there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of
these funds. The over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the
process has not changed.

The whole process is corrupt. It just doesn't make sense to most
Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and
unjustified war. First they see American bombs destroying a country,
and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it's
easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build
a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of
Engineers' budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the
expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.

One question the war promoters don't want to hear asked, because they
don't want to face up to the answer, is this: "Are Christian Iraqis
better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force
of arms?" The answer is plainly no.

Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under
Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz,
a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein's cabinet as Foreign Minister -
something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any
other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq
are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians
have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It's strange that
the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no
concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq.
Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on
Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas
in which they agree - the other being the removal of all foreign
forces from Iraqi soil.

Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it's
difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel
much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein.
Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near
being under control.

But there's another question that is equally important: "Are the
American people better off because of the Iraq war?"

One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren't
better off. The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American
troops are not better off. The families, the wives, the husbands,
children, parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not
better off.

The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist
against their will - a de facto draft - are not feeling better off.
They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.

The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200
billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent.
The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-
butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much
worse.

Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I'd say
no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker
than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims
around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks
more likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting
has accelerated. Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda
terrorists, which it never was under Hussein's rule. So as our
military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by
attracting more terrorist volunteers.

Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it's more than
twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?

Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national
security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but
the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and
further undermines our credibility around the world.

The ongoing war's lack of success has played a key role in
diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply
down, and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young
Americans rightly fear a coming draft - which will be required if we
do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign
policy.

The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and
obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and
increase in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation
with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a
misdirected policy.

One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we
ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal
liberty. Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies
armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to
sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is
that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our
Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at
home we're supposed to be fighting for. It makes no sense.

This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been
especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th
war on terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political
goal, damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done
in the name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant
nationalism.

These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our
eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not
responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in
our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of
law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.

We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional,
and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration
is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let's
hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed
Forces are wrong.

A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think
nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides
itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us
that blessed are the peacemakers - not the warmongers.

We casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we have a
moral obligation to practice nation building in our image regardless
of the number of people who die in the process.

We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country
great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the
Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding
entangling alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the
message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has
been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only
practical tool to influence the world - and we have accepted, as the
only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.

In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of
their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and
judicial branches - not to mention international government bodies.
The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that
concerns only the fringe in our society.

Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that
drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by
an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy,
regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary
desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of
a totalitarian state. There's no need for that. It's up to Congress
and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time
to correct our mistakes