Ruling Class Confessions?

Victor vrosado at ic.sunysb.edu
Mon Dec 3 18:35:43 MST 2001


http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm



Congressman Ron Paul, House of Representatives, November 29, 2001

Keep Your Eye on the Target

Mr. Speaker:

We have been told on numerous occasions to expect a long and protracted war.
This is not necessary if one can identify the target- the enemy- and then
stay focused on that target. It's impossible to keep one's eye on a target
and hit it if one does not precisely understand it and identify it. In
pursuing any military undertaking, it's the responsibility of Congress to
know exactly why it appropriates the funding. Today, unlike any time in our
history, the enemy and its location remain vague and pervasive. In the
undeclared wars of Vietnam and Korea, the enemy was known and clearly
defined, even though our policies were confused and contradictory. Today our
policies relating to the growth of terrorism are also confused and
contradictory; however, the precise enemy and its location are not known by
anyone. Until the enemy is defined and understood, it cannot be accurately
targeted or vanquished.

The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the "mob"or some international
criminal gang. It certainly is not a country, nor is it the Afghan people.
The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer with bin Laden and his
henchmen, but how much more so than the government of Saudi Arabia or even
Pakistan? Probably not much.

Ulterior motives have always played a part in the foreign policy of almost
every nation throughout history. Economic gain and geographic expansion, or
even just the desires for more political power, too often drive the
militarism of all nations. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have not been
exempt. If expansionism, economic interests, desire for hegemony, and
influential allies affect our policies and they, in turn, incite mob attacks
against us, they obviously cannot be ignored. The target will be illusive
and ever enlarging, rather than vanquished.

We do know a lot about the terrorists who spilled the blood of nearly 4,000
innocent civilians. There were 19 of them, 15 from Saudi Arabia, and they
have paid a high price. They're all dead. So those most responsible for the
attack have been permanently taken care of. If one encounters a single
suicide bomber who takes his own life along with others without the help of
anyone else, no further punishment is possible. The only question that can
be raised under that circumstance is why did it happen and how can we change
the conditions that drove an individual to perform such a heinous act.

The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are not quite so simple,
but they are similar. These attacks required funding, planning and
inspiration from others. But the total number of people directly involved
had to be relatively small in order to have kept the plans thoroughly
concealed. Twenty accomplices, or even a hundred could have done it. But
there's no way thousands of people knew and participated in the planning and
carrying out of this attack. Moral support expressed by those who find our
policies offensive is a different matter and difficult to discover. Those
who enjoyed seeing the U.S. hit are too numerous to count and impossible to
identify. To target and wage war against all of them is like declaring war
against an idea or sin.

The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for
political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the
Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame. The Afghan
people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is
closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the
Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban's rise to
power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline politics
with them.

The recent French publication of bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth revealed our
most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in collaboration
with the Taliban. According to the two authors, the economic conditions
demanded by the U.S. were turned down and led to U.S. military threats
against the Taliban.

It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to
build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible
due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be surprised now
that many contend that the plan for the UN to "nation build" in Afghanistan
is a logical and important consequence of this desire. The crisis has merely
given those interested in this project an excuse to replace the government
of Afghanistan. Since we don't even know if bin Laden is in Afghanistan, and
since other countries are equally supportive of him, our concentration on
this Taliban "target" remains suspect by many

Full Text:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list