|
Before
the U.S. House of Representatives, July 20, 2006
I rise
in opposition to this resolution, which I
sincerely believe will do more harm than good.
I do
agree with the resolution's condemnation of violence. But I am convinced that
when we get involved in foreign conflicts and send strong messages, such as
this resolution will, it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing
the conflict, and that ultimately comes back to haunt us.
Mr.
Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I
do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve
ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us
to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in
foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively,
that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents
are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the
significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians.
I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what
this resolution does.
Some
would say that there is no room to talk about neutrality, as if neutrality
were a crime. I would suggest there should be room for an open mind to
consider another type of policy that may save American lives.
I was
in Congress in the early 1980s when the US Marines were sent in to Lebanon,
and I came to the Floor before they went, when they went, and before they
were killed, arguing my case against getting involved in that conflict.
Ronald
Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn tail and run.
Then, after the Marines were killed, he had a reassessment of the policy.
When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the
Presidency, he wrote this.
Perhaps
we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the 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 to 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.
In the
weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should
do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics
forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of
policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had
changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines
would be alive today.
It is
very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about
Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah because I am a strong
opponent to all violence on all sides. But I also object to the unreasonable
accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we
realize that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able
to neutralize Hezbollah.
Mr.
Speaker, There is nothing wrong with considering the fact that we don't have
to be involved in every single fight. That was the conclusion that Ronald
Reagan came to, and he was not an enemy of Israel. He was a friend of Israel.
But he concluded that that is a mess over there. Let me just repeat those
words that he used. He said, he came to the conclusion, "The
irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy
there.'' I believe these words are probably more valid now even than when
they were written.
Ron Paul
www.house.gov/paul
All
other articles by Ron Paul
Congressman
Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for
liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington
for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return
to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. For more
information click on the Project Freedom website.
Published
with the authorization of Dr. Paul.
Copyright
Dr. Ron Paul
|