Ron Paul: Surrender Should Not Be An Option

Surrender Should Not Be an Option​

By Congressman Ron Paul(R-TX)​

Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.

In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there? Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the "mission is accomplished", the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.

They claim progress is being made and we are fighting a winnable war, but this is not a view connected with reality. We can't be sure when we kill someone over there if they were truly an insurgent or an innocent Iraqi civilian. There are as many as 650,000 deaths since the war began. The anger we incite by killing innocents creates more new insurgents than our bullets can keep up with. There are no measurable goals to be achieved at this point.

The best congressional leadership can come up with is the concept of strategic redeployment, or moving our troops around, possibly into Saudi Arabia or even, alarmingly enough, into Iran. Rather than ending this war, we could be starting another one.

The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000. They voted for an end to the war in 2006. Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves. Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran. Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another. Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?

The American people have NOT gotten the government they deserve. They asked for a stronger America and peace through nonintervention, yet we have a government of deceit, inaction and one that puts us in grave danger on the international front. The American people deserve much better than this. They deserve foreign and domestic policy that doesn't require they surrender their liberties.

- www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst090207.htm

 

1) I have - for over 20 years.

2) Not really. What you may have to accept is that our positions concerning our federal government's future course in Iraq are irreconciliable. That doesn't make either one of us wrong or a bad person or evil. We simply don't agree what the future course should be.

Now, I imagine that our positions concerning our federal government's future course in fighting al Qaeda and its allies(particularly in Afghanistan and the western frontier of Pakistan) are pretty close - we should destroy al Qaeda and its allies. That doesn't make either one of us right or a good person. We simply agree what the future course should be concerning al Qaeda and its allies.

 

I disagree with your description of what our military personnel has accomplished as being halfway done. I believe our military personnel have accomplished their mission. What is missing is the Iraqi government stepping up and fulfilling its responsibilities.

If you can convince me that if our troops stay in Iraq for another year, or another five years, or even another ten years, that our federal government could withdraw them under better conditions than exist today then I would come over to your side, Pastor Larry. At the moment, I don't believe that a year from now or five years from now or ten years from now that keeping our troops in Iraq will improve the conditions under which they would be withdrawn. I see nothing on the horizon that indicates that the Iraqi government, under the current policy, will get its act together.

 

1) The current Iraqi government has been in place for a couple of years now. It appears to be stable and sustaining itself. It is just not doing a good job of stabilizing the rest of the country and, frankly, at this point, short of installing a dictator I seriously doubt that the rest of the country can be stabilized.

2) Germany and Japan did not have ongoing civil wars. The people were united in rebuilding their respective countries. After we left Vietnam the civil war there ended and the government and the country stabilized. I didn't like the government there but apparently it was what the majority of Vietnamese wanted.

3) I simply cannot go along with the idea of involving the military of these United States in another country's civil war.

 

Congressman Ron Paul has chances of becoming president are next to nothing. Therefore, whether he is prepared or not is irrelevant.

 

I would not disagree with that. These United States are nowhere near prepared for a radical change back to liberty and constitutional government.