Congressman Paul voted against granting President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq, He opposed the surge and voted against it. He supported timetables for withdrawal. Congressman Paul opposed the war on numerous principles. First, he did not believe that the reasons given by the Bush administration were sufficient for a war and were not sufficiently proven. He has stated that what the Bush administration was asking for was not the authority to go to war, but the authority to use force - something that is not constitutional. Congress and the President only have the authority to go to war, not to simply use force at will. Since war was not declared, it was not constitutional. Congressman Paul also stated that there were no goals, no plan, and no metric to judge the war's success or end.
The War Drums are Beating
In February of 2002, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about the movement to war with Iraq. He discusses oil policy, national security, and the actions taken by China and how our response with them is different from the responses we take with Iraq.
Opposition to the authorization for the use of force
On October 4, 2002 Congressman Paul spoke about his opposition to the possibility of using force against Iraq. He notes that he has not seen any reason to invade Iraq.
On October 8, 2002, Congressman Paul spoke about his opposition to the authorization for the use of force in Iraq. Congressman Paul's argument against the resolution were that it was not an official declaration of war, and it is a preemptive strike for the first time in history noting that there has been no act of aggression.
Delaying the Inevitable
In June of 2008, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to discuss the cost of staying in Iraq as what he called "delaying the inevitable."
The Price of Delaying the Inevitable in Iraq
June 4, 2007 Good intentions frequently lead to unintended bad consequences. Tough choices, doing what is right, often leads to unanticipated good results. The growing demand by the American people for us to leave Iraq prompts the naysayers to predict disaster in the Middle East if we do. Of course, these merchants of fear are the same ones who predicted that invading and occupying Iraq would be a slam dunk operation; that we would be welcomed as liberators, and oil revenues would pay for the operation with minimal loss of American lives. All of this hyperbole came while ignoring the precise warnings by our intelligence community of the great difficulties that would lie ahead. The chaos that this preemptive, undeclared war has created in Iraq has allowed the Al Qaida to establish a foothold in Iraq and the strategic interests of Iran to be served. The unintended consequences have been numerous. A well-intended but flawed policy that ignored credible warnings of how things could go awry has produced conditions that have led to a war dominated by procrastination, without victory or resolution in sight. Those who want a total military victory, which no one has yet defined, don’t have the troops, the money, the equipment or the support of a large majority of the American people to do so. Those in Congress who have heard the cry of the electorate to end the war refuse to do so out of fear, the demagogues will challenge their patriotism and support of the troops so nothing happens except more of the same. The result is continued stalemate with the current policy and the daily sacrifice of American lives. This wait and see attitude in Washington, and the promised reassessment of events in Iraq later on, strongly motivates the insurgents to accelerate the killing of Americans in order to influence the decision coming in three months. In contrast, a clear decision to leave would prompt a wait and see attitude in Iraq, a de facto cease fire, in anticipation of our leaving, the perfect time for the Iraqi factions to hold their fire on each other and on our troops and just possibly begin talking with each other. Most Americans do not anticipate a military victory in Iraq , yet the Washington politicians remain frozen in their unwillingness to change our policy there, fearful of the dire predictions that conditions can only get worse when we leave. They refuse to admit that the condition of foreign occupation is the key ingredient that unleashed the civil war now raging in Iraq and serves as a recruitment device for Al Qaida. It’s time for a change in our foreign policy.
Surrender is Not an Option
In September of 2007, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to discuss his belief that leaving Iraq was not surrender.
Surrender Should Not be an Option
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.
Presidential Campaign
Congressman Paul remained opposed to the War in Iraq. He spoke often about the war during the Presidential campaign for the 2008 elections.
Statements for General Petraus
Five Years in Iraq
In March of 2008, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss the five year anniversary of the war in Iraq.
On Five Years in Iraq
Five years ago last week, the US military's "shock and awe" campaign lit up the Baghdad sky. Five years later, with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and nearly four thousand Americans dead, we should pause and reflect on just what has been gained and what has been lost. From the beginning, the march to war was paved with false assumptions and lies. Senior administration officials claimed repeatedly that Iraq was somehow responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001. They claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They manipulated the fear of the American people after 9/11 to further a war agenda that they had been planning years before that attack. The mainstream media was complicit in this war propaganda. Nearly ten years ago, long before 9/11, I requested the time in opposition to the fateful Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, where I then stated on the Floor of the House of Representatives, "I see this piece of legislation as essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the President tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign Nation." Less than five years later we were invading Iraq . Five years into the invasion and occupation of Iraq , untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead; some two million Iraqis have fled the country as refugees; and the Iraqi Christian community – one of the oldest in the world – has been decimated more completely than even under the Ottoman occupation or the rule of Saddam Hussein. On the US side, nearly four thousand Americans have lost their lives fighting in Iraq and many thousands more are horribly wounded. Our own senior military officers warn that our military is nearly broken by the strain of the Iraq occupation. The Veterans Administration is overwhelmed by the volume of disability claims from Iraq war veterans. A study by Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz concludes that the cost of the war in Iraq could be at least $3 trillion. The economic consequences of our enormous expenditure in Iraq are beginning to make themselves known as we fall into recession and possibly worse. Iraq war supporters claim that the "surge" of additional US troops into Iraq has been a resounding success. I am not so confident. Under the "surge" policy the United States military has trained and equipped with deadly weapons those Iraqi militia members against whom they were fighting just months ago. I fear by arming and equipping opposing militias we are just setting the stage for a more tragic and dangerous explosion of violence, possibly aimed at US troops in Iraq . There is no indication that the Iraqi government has made any political progress whatsoever. The sooner we withdraw the better. The invasion and continued US occupation has strengthened both Iran and Al-Qaeda in the region. Continuing down the road of a failed policy will only cost more money we do not have and more lives that should not be sacrificed. Interventionism has produced one disaster after another. It is time we return to a non-interventionist foreign policy that emphasizes peaceful trade and travel and no entangling alliances. We can begin by withdrawing from Iraq immediately.
Economy as a Casualty of War
In June of 2008, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to discuss the effect of the War in Iraq on the economy in the US.
The Economy: Another Casualty of War
This week, as the American economy continued to suffer the effects of big government, the House attempted to pass two multibillion dollar "emergency" spending bills, one for continued spending on the war in Iraq , and one increasing spending on domestic and international welfare programs. The plan was to pass these two bills and then send them to the president as one package. Even though the House failed to pass the war spending bill, opponents of the war should not be fooled into believing this vote signals a long term change in policy. At the end of the day, those favoring continued military occupation of Iraq will receive every penny they are requesting and more as long as they agree to dramatically increase domestic and international welfare spending as well. The continued War in Iraq and the constant state of emergency has allowed Congress to use these so-called "emergency" bills as a vehicle to dramatically increase spending across the board--including spending that does not meet even the most generous definition of emergency. For example, the spending proposals currently being considered by Congress provide $210 million to the Census Bureau and $4 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. $4.6 billion is requested for the closing of military bases, but not any of the more than 700 bases overseas – but bases here at home! Another $387 million would go to various international organizations and $850 million more just in international food aid - all this when food prices are skyrocketing here and American families are having a hard time making ends meet. Because this spending will be part of "emergency" measures, it will not count against debt ceilings, or any spending limits set by Congressional budget resolutions, and does not have to be offset in any way. Explosive growth of government is just another tragedy of this war. The "bipartisan" compromises made in Washington are at the expense of the taxpayer, not in the interest of fiscal responsibility, or peace. The taxpayer loses and government grows. The bottom line is that our dollar is falling, the economy is in rough shape, and government spending is wildly out of control. Congress argues over relatively minor details, instead of dramatically changing our flawed foreign policy. We need to bring our troops home, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan , but from South Korea , Germany , and the other 138 countries where we have troops stationed. Our foreign policy of interventionism is not only offensive to others, inviting further terrorist attacks, but it is ruining our economy as we tax, borrow and print the money to pay the bills of our empire. The economy and ultimately the American people suffer because Washington is refusing to adopt more sensible and constitutional policies. Squabbling between those who favor increased welfare and those who favor increased warfare has giving the American people a temporary reprieve from having to bear the burden of yet another dramatic increase in government this week. However, as early as next week a compromise could be reached that expands both government warfare and welfare. As congressional approval ratings drop to 18% according to a recent Gallup poll, the American people are telegraphing that Congress is taking the country in the wrong direction. Our government must stop bankrupting the country so that we can get back on track to a peaceful, prosperous future.
Iraq or the Economy
In July of 2008, Congressman Paul again used his "Texas Talk" to address the effects of the war in Iraq on the economy by noting that wealth generated by a country is used to fight the war instead of being placed back into the economy.
Iraq or the Economy?
What is the importance of the war in Iraq relative to other current issues? This is a question I am often asked, especially as Americans continue to become increasingly aware that something is very wrong with the economy. The difficulty with the way the question is often asked relates to the perception that we are somehow able to divide such issues, or to isolate the cost of war into arbitrarily defined areas such as national security or international relations. War is an all-encompassing governmental activity. The impact of war on our ability to defend ourselves from future attack, and upon America ’s standing in the world, is only a mere fraction of the total overall effect that war has on our nation and the policies of its government. The cost of this particular war is enormous, and therefore its of great importance. There is no single issue that is more important at this particular time. The war has, of course, made us less safe as a nation and damaged our credibility with allies and hostile nations alike. Moreover, years of growing deficits have been spurred on by the high price tag of war, and the decision to pay that price primarily by supplemental spending rather than traditional “on-budget” accounting. War takes what would otherwise be productive economic capacity and transfers both that capacity, and the wealth it would generate in normal, peaceful, times into far less economically viable activities. It also impacts budget priorities in ways that are detrimental to our nation. I have often pointed to the fact that we are building bridges in Iraq while they are collapsing in the United States . All war, but most particularly war funded by monetary inflation, bleeds a country in multiple ways. Obviously, many of the young people who are in the military literally give their blood, and sometimes their lives, fighting in wars of this type. Meanwhile, those who do not fight the war, but fund it, are forced to pay both the immediate costs, as well as seeing their long term purchasing power erode, as the twin pillars of debt and inflation are foisted upon the backs of current taxpayers and future generations. Neither conspiracy nor coincidence explains steep increases in the price of gas as the war drags on. No, this is simply a reality of the inflationary policies that, among other things, make this war possible. As people are continually asked to choose whether our nation’s teetering economy or the failed foreign policy of the past several decades is most important as we look forward, it is well for those of us who understand that these two issues are closely linked, to continue to explain this fact to our fellow citizens. To fix the problem requires a proper diagnosis.
Predictions Versus Reality
In September of 2008, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to discuss the predictions in Iraq compared to the realities.
Predictions vs. Reality in Iraq
On September 10, 2002 I asked 35 questions regarding war with Iraq. The war resolution passed on October 16, 2002. Now today, as some of my colleagues try to reestablish credentials regarding spending restraint, I want to call attention to my 18th question from six years ago:
“Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 year occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?”
Many scoffed at my “radical” predictions at the time, regarding them as hyperbole. Six years later, I am forced to admit that I was wrong. My “radical” predictions were in fact, not “radical” enough.
I warned of a draining 30-year occupation. Now, politicians glibly talk about a 100-year occupation as if it is no big deal. On cost, according to estimates from the Congressional Research Service, we have already burned through around $550 billion in Iraq, at a rate of about $2 billion per week. Economist Joseph Stiglitz’s estimates are even higher, at $12 billion a month. It is a total price tag quickly heading into the trillions, if we don’t stop bombing and rebuilding bridges in Iraq that lead us nowhere but bankruptcy! Bridges in this country are crumbling along with our economy, while some howl about earmarks. Earmarks are a drop in the bucket compared to war and occupation.
Yes, I was wrong about Iraq. I knew it would be bad. I didn’t know it would be this bad.
The American people deserve better. Being asked to endorse such a farce is beyond insulting. Clearly, the rosy predictions of the neo-Conservatives from before the war are not coming true. Far from it! With a straight face, one official estimated the TOTAL cost of reconstruction in Iraq would be just $1.7 billion. Turns out that we spend more than that in ONE WEEK. Our friends are not pitching in to cover the cost. Expenses are not being covered by oil from a grateful and liberated Iraqi people. Rather, big corporate interests are benefitting, the price of oil has more than quadrupled, and the American economy is on its knees and sinking fast.
No one predicted the exact course of this war before it started. But to continue to listen to the foreign policy advice of those that were the MOST offbase will only lead to more foreign policy disasters. We need to keep this in mind as we think about Russia, Iran, Cuba and other countries. Keep in mind - the doomsday predictions on the Iraq War from six years ago, sound like a cakewalk today. While what leaders in the administration had predicted, reads like a fairytale. Ask yourself, when listening to the same foreign policy “experts” explaining situations around the world and suggesting policy positions: In light of the facts of today, and the predictions of yesterday, how expert have they shown themselves to be?
Passing HR 2605 to sunset authorization for the use of force in Iraq is the first step to stopping this bloody war, and the consequent bleeding of our treasuries. Serious fiscal conservatives will support it, as will those who have been paying attention to foreign policy predictions and reality.
Getting Out of Iraq
In July of 2008, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address the need to remove troops from Iraq.
Getting Out of Iraq
What will it take to get our troops out of Iraq? The roughly 70 percent of Americans who are firmly against the war often ask this question. Those in power are reluctant to give conditions, but when they do and those conditions are met, the goal post is quietly moved.
Voters were promised, passionately and vehemently, that the new Congress would bring our troops home. Many were explicitly elected in 2006 under that banner. But our troops are still overseas, funding has been increased even beyond the administration's wish list, and troop withdrawal has been negotiated away.
When things are going badly in Iraq, they say we must stay until the situation improves. When things improve, they tell us we must stay because our gains cannot be jeopardized.
We are told that we must establish a functioning democracy there, and train Iraqi armed forces so they can keep order in our absence. Iraq now has a Constitution, an elected parliament, and hundreds of thousands of security forces. The problem now is that their troops are supposedly not trained quite well enough, and that could take many more years. Defining an adequate training level for Iraqi troops is highly nebulous and its anyone's guess when or how that criteria could be satisfied.
The latest outrage came last week. For years we heard the administration claim over and over that the Iraqi government wants us there, and is begging us to stay. On the other hand, all they had to do was ask and we would respect their wishes and leave. That also has now happened. Al-Maliki perhaps took his cue from his challenger, al-Sadr, who has been clamouring for us to leave for years. Popular opinion in Iraq now mirrors that in the United States, with about 70percent of Iraqis wishing us to leave.
At the end of the year, our Status of Forces Agreement expires. Without a new agreement and understanding with the Iraqi government regarding our presence there, we officially become occupiers.
Eventually our troops will leave Iraq. The overwhelming will of the people, in both countries, can't seem to get them out. Things going well can't get them out. Things going badly can't get them out. Iraqis telling us to leave can't get them out. Perhaps not even the UN can get them out. My hope is that it does not take the complete collapse of our financial system, but if we don't leave under any other circumstances, economic chaos is inevitable, and will make it impossible to fund the war, even through debt and inflation.
We have been financing this war through inflation, and attempting to paper over reality with misleading economic indicators. The government has changed the methodology of calculating things like CPI and GDP to hide the bad news. They won't even publish M3, the total money supply statistic anymore. But reality is hitting the American people at gas pumps and grocery stores, sending more Americans into foreclosure and unemployment lines. More are hurting while Washington keeps forgetting its promises. Eventually, this will all come to a head.
Perhaps an even greater fear is that even if our financial trouble doesn't get our troops out of Iraq, moving them over to fight a new war in Iran, will. Washington should be crystal clear on this very important point – just getting the troops out of Iraq means nothing. Bringing them HOME means everything, and that is what the people in both countries demand.
Discussion on Foreign Policy
In March of 2009, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about foreign policy and the war in Iraq. He notes that President Obama has broken his commitment to remove the troops in 18 months now plans to have 50,000 there by the end of 2011.
An End or an Escalation
In August of 2010, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address the stated end to the Iraq war.
Iraq - An End or an Escalation?
Amid much fanfare last week, the last supposed “combat” troops left Iraq as the administration touted the beginning of the end of the Iraq War and a change in the role of the United States in that country. Considering the continued public frustration with the war effort, and with the growing laundry list of broken promises, this was merely another one of the administration’s operations in political maneuvering and semantics in order to convince an increasingly war-weary public that the Iraq War is at last ending. However, military officials confirm that we are committed to intervention in that country for years to come, and our operations have in fact, changed minimally, if really at all.
After eight long draining years, I have to wonder if our government even understands what it is to end a war anymore. The end of a war, to most people, means all the troops come home, out of harm’s way. It means we stop killing people and getting killed. It means we stop sending troops and armed personnel over and draining our treasury for military operations in that foreign land. But much like the infamous “mission accomplished” moment of the last administration, this “end” of the war also means none of those things.
50,000 US troops remain in Iraq, and they are still receiving combat pay. One soldier was killed in Basra just last Sunday, after the supposed end of combat operations, and the same day 5,000 men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Hood were deployed to Iraq. Their mission will be anything but desk duty. Among other things they will accompany the Iraqi military on dangerous patrols, continue to be involved in the hunt for terrorists, and provide air support for the Iraqi military. They should be receiving combat pay, because they will be serving a combat role!
Of course the number of private contractors - who perform many of the same roles as troops, but for a lot more money - is expected to double. So this is a funny way of ending combat operations in Iraq. We are still meddling in their affairs and we are still putting our men and women in danger, and we are still spending money we don’t have. This looks more like an escalation than a draw-down to me!
The ongoing war in Iraq takes place against a backdrop of economic crisis at home, as fresh numbers indicate that our economic situation is as bad as ever, and getting worse! Our foreign policy is based on an illusion: that we are actually paying for it. What we are doing is borrowing and printing the money to maintain our presence overseas. Americans are seeing the cost of this irresponsible approach as our economic decline continues. Unemployed Americans have been questioning a policy that ships hundreds of billions of dollars overseas while their own communities crumble and their frustration is growing. An end to this type of foreign policy is way overdue.
A return to the traditional American foreign policy of active private engagement and non-interventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health.
Voting Record
Disapproval of the Surge Strategy
In February of 2007, the house passed a resolution disapproving of President Bush\'s recently announced surge strategy in Iraq. The vote on the bill was largely partisan, with a vast majority of Democrats supporting the legislation and thus disapproved of the surge. Although the resolution passed the house in roll call 99, it was not voted on in the Senate. Ron Paul voted in favor of this resolution and thus opposed the surge.
Ron Paul voted in favor of this resolution and thus opposed the surge.
Requirement for Iraq Redeployment Strategy
In October 2007, the House put forth yet another resolution to require that President Bush submit a strategy for redeployment from Iraq. The bill explicitly stated that it endorsed to specific action, but rather required that the Secretary of Defense submit a strategy to congress for the redeployment of troops from Iraq within 60 days of the resolution. Although the resolution passed the House with bipartisan support, it was not voted on in the Senate. Ron Paul voted to support the Requirement for Iraq Redeployment Strategy.
Ron Paul voted to support the Requirement for Iraq Redeployment Strategy.
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act
In July of 2007, the House again addressed the issue of redeploying troops from the Iraqi theatre. This bill had the same goal as other resolutions to redeploy troops, but lacked the removal of funding that enforced the resolution. Although a small number of members from both side crossed party lines, the resolution passed in roll call 624 among largely partisan lines. Ron Paul cast a "No Vote"
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act
The Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act was an attempt by House Democrats to bring the number of American military members in Iraq to a limited number by April 1, 2008. The measure passed the House in a 223-201 vote, but was never raised in the Senate. Ron Paul cast a "No Vote"
Iraq Transition Act
The Iraq Transition Act was a bill to to require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and for other purposes. The bill passed the House 221-196 but was never raised in the Senate. Ron Paul voted against this resolution to limit troops by April 1, 2008.
Ron Paul voted against this resolution to limit troops by April 1, 2008.
Troop Redeployment in 180 days
In May of 2007, the House attempted to pass a resolution to require that President Bush begin redeployment of troops from Iraq within 90 days and complete the withdrawal within 180 days. To enforce the resolution, language was added to restrict funding for any actions other than redeployment. Almost all Republicans opposed the resolution, and when a significant portion of Democrats joined the Republicans the resolution failed in roll call 330. Ron Paul voted to withdraw troops in 180 days.
Ron Paul voted to withdraw troops in 180 days.
Authorization for the use of Force in Iraq
The authorization for the use of force in Iraq was voted on in October of 2002. The authorization had the support of almost all Republicans and more than 1/3 of the Democrats. Ron Paul voted against the authorization for the use of force in Iraq.
Ron Paul voted against the authorization for the use of force in Iraq.
States that: (1) U.S. Armed Forces levels in Iraq after the date of enactment of this Act shall not exceed January 10, 2007, levels without specific statutory authority enacted by Congress after the date of the enactment of this Act; and (2) except as otherwise provided, the phased redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq shall begin by May 1, 2007.
