Former Congressman and host of The Liberty Report, Ron Paul, discusses with David Lin, anchor for Kitco News, the rationale for the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan and the consequences of a military withdrawal.
As us troops withdraw from Afghanistan questions remain. Should the Americans have even been there in the first place. And what's next for foreign policy. We're here to examine this with Dr. Ron Paul, former congressmen and hosts of the Liberty report. Dr. Paul, always a pleasure to have you on the show.
How are you doing David? I'm doing fine. And thanks for having me on it's always an honor. Uh, Dr. Paul, you have. Bit long, a critic, longtime critic of the war in Afghanistan. In fact, 10 years ago in March, 2011, you had testified to Congress and urged Congress to withdraw troops. Let's listen to this clip we're facing today is should we leave Afghanistan?
I think the answer is very clear and it's not complicated. And of course we should, as soon as we can, this suggests that we can leave by the end of the year. If we don't, we'll be there for another decade would be my prediction. Okay. Whether or not this is a coincidence you were right on with that prediction.
That statement was made to the floor of Congress in March, 2011, exactly. 10 years ago. And of course, 10 years later, we are just withdrawing. So, uh, first of all, you made that statement 10 years after the launch of the invasion of Afghanistan. Why did you say at that time that troops should withdraw? What was your rationale for making that statement?
Well, we, we shouldn't have gone in if we went into you're under a false pretense, although, uh, the president gained some authority to deal with the people who perpetuated nine 11. Uh, I, if I go back and look at that, I do not believe the word Afghanistan was, uh, mentioned in that authority to use military force.
It was to deal with people who participated. Yeah. The argument was, well, we think somebody passed through there and might've participated, but, uh, at that time it was the Taliban that was in, uh, in Afghanistan. We had to be concerned about, and the Taliban had nothing to do with nine 11. It was Al Qaeda.
And although, uh, bin Ladin was in those regions. In that area? Uh, it, uh, I think that it was a serious mistake to, well, to go, uh, head that the story to go. And if they said Ben Ladin was involved, yes. Deal with it. But the amazing thing, what happened is we went in there and more or less took over the country rather rapidly and also cornered, uh, Ben Lauden.
At the same time, there was a battle of Tora, Tora, Tora, Bora. And, uh, all of a sudden, uh, been longing to through United States fingers. And then within a short period of time, he had been, he got into app into Pakistan and over all those years, uh, I didn't know for sure, but it was my suspicion. I said, you know, I think you've just used this as an excuse.
But to go into Afghanistan, he's probably over in Pakistan right now. Uh that's where w where you should be. But, uh, I think a lot of what happened after nine 11, uh, provided an opportunity for some of the authoritarians and the neo-conservatives. To accelerate their presence around the world, because one of the first things that was done was the Patriot act was passed and they didn't write it.
It had been written, it was sitting on a shelf and within days they were passing the Patriot act, which was a horrible, horrible bill. And then at the same time, but just days later, This authority to use military force against the perpetrators of nine 11. It was passed, but, uh, most, most people thought, well, it sounds to me like there might be a more question of Iraq and all of a sudden, no we're going to Afghanistan.
And, uh, but I think that's all part of the. Way, we as a country have dealt with our foreign policy because of course from my viewpoint, we're overly aggressive, we're involved too much. And we do have an empire that we defend. And, uh, of course, uh, we, uh, it was nothing new to think that we should be involved because we participated as an ally of Ben lawn too.
Get the Russians out of Afghanistan. So it's, it's the bigger picture for me is intervention versus non-intervention. And that takes a whole day to discuss well, you, you had just said that, uh, the Taliban were not directly responsible for nine 11. But a Biden president, Joe Biden earlier in the week made an address to the nation.
And he said that one of the primary objectives for entering Afghanistan was to fight terrorism. So, uh, that seems to be a contradiction there. Take a listen to this. Clinton will comment. We went to Afghanistan almost 20 years ago with clear goals, get those who attacked us on September 11th, 2001. And.
Make sure Al-Qaida could not use Afghanistan as a base from which to attack us again. We did that. We severely degraded Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. We never gave up the hunt for Osama bin Laden. And we got him that was a decade ago. Our mission Afghanistan was never supposed to have been nation building. It was never supposed to be creating a unified centralized democracy.
Okay. So he, he's saying a few things here. First of all, he's justifying his withdrawal of gift ganas, Stan, by saying that objectives were already met. And second he saying that he was there to fight. Well, the Americans were there to fight Qaeda and counter-terrorism is he right? Dr. Paul? Well, he w the, the policy was used as an excuse to go in and for what they wanted to do now, I guess he had, he said a lot of things correctly there, but I think it was, uh, not a lot different than that than, than just going after, uh, you know, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda wasn't there, and they weren't even in that rack, uh, It was just the excuse to go in there.
Now, if I had thought about that he had 20 years to deal with it. He was in the Senate. If I would go, you have to go back and, and see what he said 10 years ago or 20 years ago and find out what he thought about it because, uh, you know, there was a consensus strong. Uh, right and left Republican and Democrat census that we had to do something and believe me, the pressure was very, very strong that you had to do something.
So, and you didn't want an emergency, like this go to waste. So they were doing the things that they already had plans for. Like I said, the Patriot act was ready to go and it passed like that. And then also. Yeah, going in and expanding our, a role in Afghanistan, uh, was something that was sought after, you know, there were pipelines going through there.
It, uh, yes, it's, it's a good story. That, that is the thing that you would sell the program with. Uh, but believe me, they. Uh, I have had to do some selling because the American people back at that time with the expansion of the war, the American people basically disagreed with it. So there was a lot of propaganda do to scare people.
Uh, it was all Al-Qaida, uh, you know, and it wasn't, it wasn't the Taliban. And even now, uh, the Taliban is a different type of organization. Uh, they, they have the benefit of, uh, defending the homeless. Believe me, that gives you tremendous benefit. So, uh, and they were going to prevent, uh, uh, systematic, uh, uh, both BOFU of Al Qaeda.
I just don't believe that was it, but it was good politics. It was good politics. And that's how they got that path. And his speech wasn't, you know, all wrong. It was just the adjusted justification. So when I started from a position of non-intervention is a long way from just staying out of trouble. So that we don't have to deal now with after 20 years of this problem, dealing with tens of thousands of people.
And that's going to go on for a long time, the consequences last for a long period of time. And believe me, we are not going to lose an interest in Afghanistan. We're not going to just close the door and walk away. We had to send a lot of troops in there already try to save the other troops. We're always, we're always compensating.
Uh, hopefully though, and we think we've made progress and we think that our country's learning a lesson, but, uh, we're gonna keep working at the Liberty report to try to get the information that we need a lot less intervention. And then we wouldn't have these consequences, not lasting for five or 10 years for 20 years.
And, uh, and everybody said, we shouldn't be there now for 10 years. I said, we shouldn't be there. Uh, button statement there about it's time to leave. And, uh, at the original Intapp was a little questionable. So, uh, politicians, uh, you know, are, are pretty good at justifying everything. Okay. Uh, before we talk about the future, I want to ask you about what happened right after nine 11.
You were in Congress when nine 11 happened. And of course you were right. There was a strong consensus from both parties to do something in the middle east. And of course that's something turned out to be the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, um, when you were there, you've always held a policy of non-intervention.
How did you argue your point across to your opponents who wanted to go to war and Afghanistan? What was the dialogue like? Right after nine, nine. There was an, uh, it, it, it was not authorized. There was no moral basis for it. There was no constitutional basis for it because when they were talking about voting for the authority to use military force, I was on the committee, the foreign affairs committee, and everybody was for it given the authority, but it was just to let the president do, what do you think is necessary to make us safe and secure and that sort of thing.
It was a blanket state, and I strongly objected to that. So I said, look, I disagree with it. But I'm introducing this resolution that says you're going to declare war against, uh, Afghanistan. You're going to go in there and fight a war. And, uh, of course I said, I'm not voting for, but I want you to vote for it because that's what you're wanting for.
And that's what you're moving toward. And they were hysterical over that. They were just furious that they had the vote on it. And of course, everybody voted against it, but they'd never, they would never consider it. The clearing war. We haven't done that since the world war two. And we just go, we give license to our presidents.
The Congress goes along. It's a bipartisan effort. Republican the Democrats, they fight a lot. Among themselves over some issues, but when it comes to our presence around the world, believe me, the military industrial complex is very much in charge and they get their way. Nobody ever cuts a penny out of, out of that budget.
And believe me, I, we, we right now spend three times as much as the Chinese, the spans on their militarism. And, uh, though, do we really need it? How much it, we spend that was it $2 trillion in Afghanistan and that whole area, six hours, my goodness. You know what, someday it's going to lead to our bankruptcy.
Of course. That's what I think we're we already are critics now are saying that the Taliban has taken over most parts of Afghanistan. So the entire 20 year war was done in futility we've we w we went there to fight the Taliban and now they're back. How would you respond to that criticism? It proves my point.
It makes my whole point about non-intervention. It's crazy. And even if you look at the long-term history of Afghanistan and here we were, we were involved with when the Russians were there, the Soviets were there. We participated. And, uh, we played games there with, with been involved and to have this, somebody say, boy, you are really astute.
You made this prediction that this is going to last forever. No, it's it's plain common sense. That's what you expect. It was sorta like the Vietnam thing. I lived through the 1960s. I got drafted in 1962 and I was in the military for five years. And what a disaster that was. And, uh, I just have grown to the point where I just, I cannot justify this militarism financially, morally or constitutionally just doesn't make any sense that this is just a perfect example of a, you know, they say, well, it was bad policy.
It didn't do it. Republicans are really critical of Biden because he should've done it this way versus that way. Well, when it should have to happen, but if you had to do it, yes, you could have done a lot better than what he did. Uh, but he, he didn't, if I didn't create the problem, other than the fact that he was negligent for 20 years, he didn't give any speeches on the Senate floor saying, you know, this is by a troll.
This is a lot of trouble. We shouldn't be doing this. Cause we could be there for a long time. I might have to become president in 20 years to finally sit. Yeah. Just finally at the end, this war, uh, he didn't, we didn't hear of that. Any of that? Okay. Well, did the objectives change at all during the war from 20 years ago to, uh, last week, did at any point that Congress, I know you love Congress in 2013, but while you were still there for the a 13, 12 year period, was there any talk amongst a congressmen or senators that, uh, that the focus of being in the middle east should be shipped.
Oh, yeah, the problem is you can't, uh, you can't, uh, know who's telling the truth because it's always a, a very patriotic good thing to do to provide national security. All the reasons that you give, when you talk about all our efforts in the middle east and Afghanistan, and this really irritates me, they said, uh, that we're, we're doing, we're doing it.
To keep us safe and we, because they're going to, they're going to be here. And, and they also say that it's, uh, it protects our constitution yeah. With the Patriot act and all this other stuff in the bankruptcy and everything they do. But it's always Dell, Dell in terms. And the propaganda is a very, very powerful, just like they're powerful in this epidemic.
Uh, that that we have and that they can change a billion, uh, uh, and people do shift their hears, and they have natural instincts because just think of that, that, uh, they used to talk about the Vietnam syndrome that, uh, you know, we walked away and all that. Healing and all that uselessness over there. And, uh, and in a way, when Bush finally, uh, went into the middle east, they say, well, we've finally got rid of that Vietnam syndrome of not wanting to be involved, but I see it.
The big picture is that we are an empire and we have been able to maintain it. We've had tremendous. Financial and economic and military power by fault since world war II. But right now that is shrinking and dwindling until yeah. This, I think the big deal on this week, uh, was the evidence once again that, uh, yes, we got knocked down a few pegs after Vietnam.
We lost our first war and this one was it's a more humiliation. So it's a mixed blessing because one should be less than two. We don't need to be policing the world. All great nations have finally failed when they go off restraint on monetary, uh, uh, funding, uh, you know, and, and, and have no sound money and also expanding themselves too much overseas.
And that the Soviet system collapsed. I, you know, I was in the military. Well during the cold war and missiles in Cuba. And I thought for sure that we were going to have a nuclear exchange and here it is, it just melted away. The Soviet system was done because they bankrupted themselves. And where did they do it in Afghanistan?
Such irony. I have just amazing. Well, okay, well, so, but so supporters of the war in Afghanistan would argue that, uh, that the purpose of being there was to contain terrorism. And in fact, uh, there has been no major terrorist attack on American soil, at least on the same scale as nine 11, following nine 11.
And so now these same people are arguing that a withdrawal, a us withdrawal of Afghanistan could open the void to more terrorist activity and open that America up to potentially another attack. Yeah, well, it's interesting because, uh, at the, the going in Afghanistan to take care of terrorism and stop the terrace, that was just, that was just an excuse that, ah, I mean it used nine 11 to us invade Afghanistan and at the government and the people of Afghanistan, uh, did not come and do it with Saudi Arabia.
More, more so than anybody else. Now, if you want to worry about terrorism, Uh, after all this Mo money bombing and killing, uh, the motivation for the radicals llamas came, came originally from era in 1953. Uh, when, uh, we were participating in a coup to get rid of Moshe death and, uh, they re-read and remember that all, but he, up into night.
79. And our last 20 years is a motivation for the terrorists to be very angry at us because how many people did we kill? How many times did they come here? And they characteristically the Taliban are not people who are likely to come here. Uh, that's more the Taliban there, right? But they're not over there, not in Afghanistan.
That was an excuse to go. But I think we're worse off now after 20 years of, uh, involvement in Afghanistan with the Afghanis wanting to do something to us, uh, because, uh, how would the American people react if we had been occupied by a foreign government for 20 years, and then they did, then we finally have a pseudo victory and I move on.
There'd be a lot of bitterness. So, so we help motivate. Uh, you know, those individuals who get pretty disgusted with us bottom line then Dr. Paul, do you think that America is less safe after the withdrawal? Uh, well, it depends on from what we're less safe from our own government tearing up our constitution.
I'm Tara from, from Al-Qaeda the Taliban from terrorism specifically. Oh, I, I, I think we're, uh, I wouldn't say less safe. I think there's great potential, but, uh, no, I wouldn't put it that way, but the entire system that, uh, I, I worry more about you. Uh, what's happening here. Our government does to us and I worry about interventionism that's going to get us someplace else.
I mean, we haven't walked out of Syria. Uh, we haven't walked out of many countries. We're in about 150 countries. We're still have potential problems and believe me, I don't think, I don't think I saw something yesterday. This is money. This is the monetary thing that, uh, that we have been able to secure.
The goal that has been accumulated in Afghanistan and we kept it from, we kept it from the Taliban. So we're going to, we're going to be involved for a long time someday. They're going to have a pipeline, uh, go through Afghanistan. But, uh, I think we've gone at it. Exactly the wrong way. Very, very costly and very, very dangerous.
And, uh, yes, I, I think there's still the danger of people want to use terrorism, but not quite the way people worry about it. I don't think it's, I don't think, uh, uh, there's going to be a, uh, nine 11 next week. Punishing the American people, uh, will prevent the terrorists from coming if they come. It's not because we didn't have enough infringement on our liberties, uh, such as what has occurred with Patriot act and what has occurred now, uh, with this war against the virus.
I think that's, that's the stuff that we should be worried about because, because we're rolling. Oh, the American people are rolling over and they do whatever they say, vaccinate, Hey, give me a vaccine. Passport and, uh, where I'm asking to do all these kinds of things. They never talk about Liberty and freedom and letting people take care of themselves and emphasizing free markets and sound money.
Uh, it's the absence of that is what we really should be worried about. I want to touch on one more point before we move on in foreign policy with China now, uh, many critics online, uh, have speculated or have commented that. The Americans have a moral obligation to protect the people of Afghanistan.
You've no doubt seen images of people trying to flee the airport at Kabul and a vice president. Biden has justified his withdrawal by saying that no, the Americans do not have this obligation. Let's take a listen to his statement here. Here's what I believe to my core. It is wrong to order American troops to step up when Afghanistan's own.
Armed forces would not. The political leaders of Afghanistan were unable to come together for the good of their people, unable to negotiate for the future of their country. When the chips were down, they would never have done. So while us troops remained in Afghanistan, bearing the brunt of the fighting for them
and our true strategic competitors, China and Russia. Would love nothing more than the United States to continue to funnel billions of dollars in resources and attention in the stabilized in Afghanistan. And definitely is he right? Dr. Paul, should we, should we be there or should we not be there or should we, do we have the obligation to protect civilian lives in Afghanistan?
Well, well, you know, the, the one part where you have to talk about it a little bit, basically I libertarian would be there. We wouldn't be there. We'd be out of there. And we wouldn't cause all this tragedy, but, uh, what happens when somebody else does it? What if you put the libertarian in charge now, what do you do?
And there's, uh, you know, our troops are being there and. Right now the Taliban sounds like the best thing they would lie. Why all you guys go away, we're tired of you just leave and we'll let you leave. I hope that would be true, but, uh, they, they, uh, they won't, uh, they will do that. I think that, that, uh, that, that the Taliban, uh, you know, is going to be able to do that, but.
Uh, you know, the obligation we have the difficulty is what about the people that we have American students there? We have people, some salt, uh, some, uh, Africa gone. He's actually, you know, out of serious, uh, effort joined with Republic with the Americans. But, uh, no, that is. That, that does not give you a just cause to continue to do bad policy.
Two wrongs won't make a right. So no it's time for us to leave. It's difficult. We created the mass. I think a lot of what Biden was saying there was blaming, you know, You know why this failed? Well, we created it by being there. And then, uh, Trump had a better plan on coming out of there, which was turned down and then Biden comes in and he has a plan and he justifies it in moral terms.
The American people are tired of this, and that sounded good, but uh, believe me, uh, Uh, Hey, Hey, uses that as an excuse because, uh, it's, it's just something that it has to sound good, but it's not, it's not going to work. We need to get out of there. And that's a simple, but overall we're dealing with tactical things here and the tactical thing.
Are that, uh, uh, more difficult strategically. It's easy to just stay away, but, uh, but the whole thing is, is it what kind of moral obligation we have and, you know, and I have to have say I have some empathy for that for enticing those people, but it's not a justification to violate the property rights of all American citizens to bring 20,000 Afghanis in here and say, You're going to take care of them.
You're going to pay for this. We've we do have a few extra and extra people coming in across the Southern border, but we're going to have more and more, and there's no money in the bank. So, uh, that's that is, uh, I think in a free society, that'd be the problems like that. And, uh, and a moral, generous nation would try to help, but it has to be voluntary people, relatives, and friends, and neighbors and volunteer organizations.
It would bring people in. Uh, load on a plane and send in tens of thousands of people, which would prove will probably happen. And when that's a violation of our liberties, our property rights should have the cost to him. Uh, so that, uh, that is not a justification, but I have to admit, I sure, sure.
Understand. Why our policies have enticed a lot of people to participate. We did that after Vietnam place. We shouldn't have been in, but we said, well, we messed up this, take anybody who was friendly to us and we'll take care of you. Uh, you know, one, one, the crime leads to another crime, which is a real.
Hmm. Finally, I want to touch on foreign policy. This is an article from the, uh, shiny state newspaper global times. Headline has China respect, Afghans choice, expects Taliban to keep it sort of establishing inclusive government. I'm just going to read the first paragraph. China hopes that the Taliban can implement its previous commitments.
And ensure a smooth transition of power in Afghanistan spokesperson with the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs. This is a turn of, uh, attitudes from the Chinese government, a body of politicians who previously did not even recognize a Taliban as a legitimate governing body. But now it seems like they are welcoming the idea of somewhat friendly relationships.
Where do you see. Yeah, you can't read it on the minds of these people, what their motives are, but yeah, but you know, I, since there was a difference in time, I sure hope it's true because the Taliban was sending messages out that they were acting, uh, differently. And, uh, and, uh, the Chinese baby, uh, reacting to that.
But, uh, that just seems like, uh, Uh, you know, that's their dealing. Why w why not? You know, one thing I argued, which was a much closer to home argument was Cuba. I've always argued that, you know, but why, why do we still have sanctions on Cuba? The people, you know, and because I do believe as a free market person, less a person that trade and travel and friendships, the more, a better.
So if they, if they just offer a little bit, know. Go to it and trade with people. It China's more dependent on trade around the world than ever before. I think that's good. What about a difference? I was in high school when my teachers were being drafted the end, go over there and die in Korea. What, what, what, uh, what, what a big difference there is now?
Yeah. Would it not? Would it not concern you Dr. Paul, that a competitor to the United States is showing friendly ad, uh, attitudes towards a former advocacy. Of the U S would that no, I think it's not, I don't, I don't think it's any of our business, you know, why, why should the Chinese have a right to do, talk to the, uh, Afghanis?
And we, we took control of them for 20 years. So what right. Do we have, we don't have a moral right. Or a constitutional right. But what practical? Right. Do we have, we had our chance using the horn fist and authority that we will make them. Good Democrats. And they were going to act like Americans, and we're going to get rid of your silliness.
Uh, that that didn't work. So people are figuring out if the Chinese want to deal with that, that's up to them. If they want to trade with us, we should trade with them. If the Chinese want to trade with us, we've been trading, but we're putting sanctions on them all the time. We're always interfering volunteerism.
People there aren't that many rules to follow, to have peace in the world. One is, uh, and no violence. You can't commit and initiate violence, which a lot of people believe in something. People don't. And the other thing is everything that we do inter react with anybody, or everybody should be voluntary, you know, and whether it's social, whether it's weather, whether it's, uh, educational, whatever religion, everything has to be voluntary.
And all of a sudden, you know, And one of the thing about a voluntourism is that you can run your life as you please, and you can keep what you earn. And I found when I lectured to college kids, they sort of liked that idea of being left alone. I know the college kids get a bum rap, but they understood this.
They understood they wanted their individual freedom. Sometimes they want more than just their freedom, but I'll tell you, I think that, uh, I think that brings people together. I should bring, if you have a true, uh, presentation for Liberty. People should come together, especially in our country. It w it works in religion.
You know, most, most Americans, uh, tolerate and understand that they don't go around, uh, you know, fighting with other religious groups. And, uh, and, and that's the way it should be on economics and money. Everybody gets to make up their own mind, whether it's social, sexual, or whatever, uh, related. It should be voluntary.
Why is that so complicated? You know, because there's a few people that get to the top by lying and stealing and cheating and using force, and they are a minority, but they get control. They get control of the monetary system and they also get control of the media and look at what's happening in this country today.
The media for years have been known to be under a special control. And now we have the social media. They're partners with their partners, with our government, they're doing the dirty work. They're enforcing the vaccine, uh, passport and, uh, under the name of, well, we're a free enterprise system at the same time, a big corporation, just the other day I want to in a social media got $10 billion contract, but the government and he doesn't, they don't pay taxes.
I mean, that's the kind of nonsense that we have to deal with. And in a literature in society, obviously you couldn't do it though. All right. Well, Dr. Paul, uh, I appreciate your insights today. Thank you very much for sharing them with us today. Thank you. Nice to be with you. And thank you for watching Kitco news.
I'm David Lynn stayed tuned for more news, and don't forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow me on Twitter at David Lynn underscore TV.
Okay.