What Cannot Be Said About Iraq

0 Shares

In this week’s “Texas Straight Talk,” Ron Paul takes a look at the hamster wheel of American interventionist policy in the Middle East and points out its senseless, repetitive, destabilizing influence. Never mind that our leaders know exactly what they’re doing, even if they’ll never admit it.

October was Iraq’s deadliest month since April, 2008. In those five and a half years, not only has there been no improvement in Iraq’s security situation, but things have gotten much worse. More than 1,000 people were killed in Iraq last month, the vast majority of them civilians. Another 1,600 were wounded, as car bombs, shootings, and other attacks continue to maim and murder.

As post-“liberation” Iraq spirals steadily downward, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was in Washington last week to plead for more assistance from the United States to help restore order to a society demolished by the 2003 U.S. invasion. Al-Qaida has made significant recent gains, Maliki told President Obama at their meeting last Friday, and Iraq needs more US military aid to combat its growing influence.

Obama pledged to work together with Iraq to address al-Qaeda’s growing presence, but what was not said was that before the U.S. attack there was no al-Qaida in Iraq. The appearance of al-Qaida in Iraq coincided with the U.S. attack. They claimed we had to fight terror in Iraq, but the U.S. invasion resulted in the creation of terrorist networks where before there were none. What a disaster.

Maliki also told President Obama last week that the war in next-door Syria was spilling over into Iraq, with the anti-Assad fighters setting off bombs and destabilizing the country. Already more than 5,000 people have been killed throughout Iraq this year, and cross-border attacks from Syrian rebels into Iraq are increasing those numbers. Again, what was not said was that the U.S. government had supported these anti-Assad fighters both in secret and in the open for the past two years.

Earlier in the week a group of Senators – all of whom had supported the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq – sent a strongly-worded letter to Obama complaining that Maliki was far too close to the Iranian government next door. What was not said was that this new closeness between the Iraqi and Iranian governments developed under the U.S.-installed government after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Surely there is plenty of blame that can be placed on Maliki and the various no-doubt corrupt politicians running Iraq these days. But how was it they came to power? Were we not promised by those promoting the war that it would create a beach-head of democracy in the Middle East and a pro-American government?

According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, in early 2001 as the new Bush administration was discussing an attack on Iraq, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, “Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that’s allied with U.S. interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond it. It would demonstrate what U.S. policy is all about.”

We see all these years later now how this ridiculous this idea was.

I have long advocated the idea that since we just marched in, we should just march out. That goes for U.S. troops and also for U.S. efforts to remake Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and everywhere the neocon wars of “liberation” have produced nothing but chaos, destruction, and more U.S. enemies overseas. We can best improve the situation by just leaving them alone.

The interventionists have unfortunately neither learned their lesson from the Iraq debacle nor have they changed their tune. They are still agitating for regime change in Syria, even as they blame the Iraqi government for the destabilization that spills over. They are still agitating for a U.S. attack on Iran, with Members of Congress introducing legislation recently that would actually authorize U.S. force against Iran.

It looks like a very slow learning curve for our bipartisan leaders in Washington. It’s time for a change.

Personal Liberty

Ron Paul

Former Representative Ron Paul has maintained a steadfast consistency in speaking out against executive power, taxation and war. Unlike many of his Republican peers, as a Congressman, he voted against the Patriot Act and against the Iraq war. He has voted against farm subsidies and regulating the Internet, which is in line with his interest in reducing government spending and the role of the Federal government. Paul has also expressed his opposition to the war on drugs, saying that the government's efforts have actually been a war on doctors. These and other controversial opinions have often caused tension with his Republican counterparts. Paul is the author of many books, including End The Fed, Liberty Defined and Revolution: A Manifesto. Along with a lengthy political career as a Congressman and Presidential candidate, Paul has also worked as a respected obstetrician in his home State of Texas. Since his retirement from Congress in 2013, Paul has stayed busy encouraging Americans to fight for liberty by founding the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and his own news channel.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • rbrooks

    running that story on this site. the lack of comments says a lot.

    • KennyLLC

      Ron Paul renders everyone speechless: as well they should be.
      Why he has never been elected President is beyond all reason.
      But what “reason” is behind the election of the past Presidents in the last 50 years anyway ?

      • rbrooks

        the posers on this site are speechless, on this story. so many of them supported little bush and his two wars. their libertarian hero has created a dilemma for the war supporting cheer leaders.

        • Deerinwater

          I’d come near think,they are just busy elsewhere tonight.

          until the vacuum that we created in Iraq is fill by one ~ baba$$ MF ~ IraQ will know no peace.

        • Deerinwater

          I’d come near think,they are just busy elsewhere tonight.

          until the vacuum that we created in Iraq is fill by one ~ baba$$ MF ~ IraQ will know no peace.

          • rbrooks

            they were busy being a hero in their latest war game.

            saddam was doing a fair job of that until little bush and his supporters got stupid.

            which is why there are very few willing to comment on this story. they supported the 2 wars.

          • Deerinwater

            Correct rbrook, The Right Wing Christian Coalition. I was never very fond of them then and that has not changed over time but became only stronger as they duck and dodge and you can’t find one.

          • rbrooks

            the moral majority.

            they are neither moral or a majority.

  • Deerinwater

    Well? ~ If we don’t march in, then there is no need to marching out.

    but disengaging is a trick anyway you want to look at it.

    Like the General Powell said, ~ Mr. President, ~ we break it, we own it.

    “Former Secretary of State Powell denies using the term “pottery barn rule”, but stated:

    “It is said that I used the “Pottery Barn rule.” I never did it; [Thomas] Friedman did it … But what I did say … [is that] once you break it, you are going to own it, and we’re going to be responsible for 26 million people standing there looking at us. And it’s going to suck up a good 40 to 50 percent of the Army for years. And it’s going to take all the oxygen out of the political environment. . .”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule

    Evidently, ~ he was the only smart man standing in the room at that time.

  • Deerinwater

    I wish Ron Paul could have been president as well. ~if he could have seen way to tone his message down some and not scared the Be-gee-us out of so many people that depended on Status Quo , he might have had a chance at it.

    While I do still wonder what Ron Paul had in the “hole” , what was he hiding for “whole cards”? ~ Every politician has something in the hole, something that he can’t expose until the time is right.

    I think perhaps I’m not alone with this quandary.