By Congressman Ron
Paul
Hundreds of thousands of American troops already occupy Afghanistan
and Iraq, a number that is rising as the military surge moves forward. The
justification, given endlessly since September 11th, is that both
support terrorism and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step
back and examine the region as a whole, it’s obvious that these two impoverished
countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to
American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The
decision to attack them, while treating some of region’s worst regimes as
allies, shows the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle
East.
Consider Saudi Arabia, the native home of most of the September
11th hijackers. The Saudis,
unlike the Iraqis, have proven connections to al Qaeda. Saudi
charities have funneled money to Islamic terrorist groups. Yet the
administration insists on calling Saudi Arabia a “good partner in the war on
terror.”
Why? Because the U.S. has a longstanding relationship with the Saudi
royal family, and a long history of commercial interests relating to Saudi
oil. So
successive administrations continue to treat the Saudis as something they are
not: a reliable and honest friend in the Middle East.
The
same is true of Pakistan, where General Musharaf seized power by force in a 1999
coup. The Clinton administration quickly accepted his new leadership as
legitimate, to the dismay of India and many Muslim Pakistanis. Since 9/11, we
have showered Pakistan with millions in foreign aid, ostensibly in exchange for
Musharaf’s allegiance against al Qaeda. Yet has our new ally rewarded our
support? Hardly. The
Pakistanis almost certainly have harbored bin Laden in their remote mountains,
and show little interest in pursuing him or allowing anyone else to pursue
him.
Pakistan has signed peace agreements with Taliban leaders, and by some
accounts bin Laden is a folk hero to many Pakistanis.
Furthermore, more members of al Qaeda probably live within Pakistan
than any other country today. North Korea developed its nuclear capability with
technology sold to them by the Pakistanis. Yet somehow we remain friends with
Pakistan, while Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to bin Laden and no
friends in the Islamic fundamentalist world, was made a scapegoat.
The
tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is
increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and
funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and
it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just
to name two examples. If honest democratic elections were held throughout the
Middle East tomorrow, many countries would elect religious fundamentalist
leaders hostile to the United States. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really
doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start
pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests.
A
coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best
served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East.
Yes, we need Middle Eastern oil, but we can reduce our need by exploring
domestic sources. We should rid ourselves of the notion that we are at the mercy
of the oil-producing countries- as the world’s largest oil consumer, their
wealth depends on our business. We should
stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that
buying allies doesn’t work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the
area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up
dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that
our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems
that it solves. All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and
their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of
non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle
East.
