WHEN WILL WE ATTACK SYRIA?; Congressional Record Vol. 158, No. 93

<!-- -->

WHEN WILL WE ATTACK SYRIA?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from

Texas (Mr. Paul) for 5 minutes.

Mr. PAUL. Plans, rumors, and war propaganda for attacking Syria and

deposing Assad have been around for many months. This past week,

however, it was reported that the Pentagon indeed was finalizing plans

to do just that.

In my opinion, all the evidence to justify this attack is bogus. It

is no more credible than the pretext given for the 2003 invasion of

Iraq or for the 2011 attack on Libya.

The total waste of those wars should cause us to pause before this

all-out effort at occupation and regime change is initiated against

Syria. There are no national security concerns that require such a

foolish escalation of violence in the Middle East. There should be no

doubt that our security interests are best served by completely staying

out of the internal strife now raging in Syria. We are already too much

involved in supporting the forces within Syria anxious to overthrow

their current government. Without outside interference, the strife, now

characterized as a civil war, would likely be nonexistent.

Whether or not we attack yet another country, occupying it and

setting up another regime that we hope we can control, poses a serious

constitutional question: From where does a President get such

authority?

Since World War II, the proper authority to go to war has been

ignored. It has been replaced by international entities like the United

Nations and NATO, or the President, himself, while ignoring the

Congress. And sadly, the people don't object.

Our recent Presidents explicitly maintain that the authority to go to

war is not the U.S. Congress'. This has been the case since the 1950s,

when we were first taken into war in Korea under a UN resolution and

without congressional approval. Once again, we are about to engage in

military action against Syria, and at the same time irresponsibly

reactivating the Cold War with Russia. We're now engaged in a game of

\\\`\\\`chicken'' with Russia, which presents a much greater threat to our

security than does Syria.

Would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution

to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border? We would consider that a

legitimate concern for us. But for us to be engaged in Syria, where the

Russians have a legal naval base, is equivalent to the Russians being

in our backyard in Mexico.

We are hypocritical when we condemn Russia for protecting its

neighborhood interests, as we claim we are doing the same ourselves

thousands of miles from our shore. There's no benefit for us to be

picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging civil

strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria. Falsely charging

the Russians with supplying military helicopters to Assad is an

unnecessary provocation. Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so-

called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is

nothing more than war propaganda.

Most knowledgeable people now recognize that to plan war against

Syria is merely the next step to take on the Iranian Government,

something the neoconservatives openly admit. Controlling Iranian oil,

just as we have done in Saudi Arabia and are attempting to do in Iraq,

is the real goal of the neoconservatives who have been in charge of our

foreign policy for the past couple of decades.

War is inevitable without a significant change in our foreign

policy--and soon. Disagreements between our two political parties are

minor.

{time} 1050

Both agree that sequestration of any war funds must be canceled.

Neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in

the Middle East and South Asia.

This crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much

bigger war than just another routine occupation and regime change that

the American people have grown to accept or ignore.

It's time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy, seeking

peace, trade, and friendship. We must abandon our military effort to

promote and secure an American empire.

Besides, we're broke. We can't afford it. And worst of all, we're

fulfilling the strategy laid out by Osama bin Laden, whose goal had

always been to bog us down in the Middle East and bring on our

bankruptcy here at home.

It's time to bring our troops home and establish a noninterventionist

foreign policy, which is the only road to peace and prosperity.

This week I'm introducing legislation to prohibit the administration,

absent a declaration of war by Congress, from supporting--directly or

indirectly--any military or paramilitary operations in Syria. I hope my

colleagues will join me in this effort.

&nbsp;