Backed by the US, Iraq is set to launch a “decisive” assault on Mosul to remove the city from ISIS control. What will be left of the city? How is the media covering it? What about Aleppo? Who wins?
Ron Paul: Hello everybody, and thank you for tuning in to The Liberty Report. With me today is Daniel McAdams, the co-host. Daniel, it’s good to see you.
Daniel McAdams: Good morning, Dr. Paul.
Ron Paul: Good. I’d like to visit with you and with our audience today on Iraq. There’s a war going on over there, and, of course, I think this war has been going on since 1991 with the Persian Gulf war at the time, and we’ve been there ever since, bombing and killing. But, the big thing is the battle for Mosul, and how it’s going. It’s been going on for a couple of days, and it hasnt been resolved, so I’d like to sort of catch up on this. One of the problems we have is getting good information, we aren’t confident that everything you read and hear is going to be the scoop. I’m sure you have come across this problem that we have, where do we get our information from, and is it the same old stuff that’s just confusing, or is there even more manipulation of what we hear?
Ron Paul: I think about a week ago, you may have heard President Obama said something about, “What a shame there is so much irresponsible media out there. We need to have some kind of a body to control it”. So it is true, there are so many more sources of information that are available, and the big corporations can’t keep a grip on it. As a matter of fact, we were just looking at some of the analytics before the show – I’m a little bit off track, but it’s interesting – and we noticed an increasing number of our viewers are coming from overseas, people are watching The Liberty Report from all other parts of the world, so it’s interesting who people turn to for news. But back on the topic, though, you’re right, I’ve talked about the media a lot, and I’m fascinated by the way the media handles things.
Looking at the way CNN and CBS have covered the battle for Mosul is so interesting because it’s a heroic struggle to free the city from ISIS. And every part about it is in breathtaking detail, the horrors of ISIS. Of course, that’s true, but the way it’s portrayed, and contrast that with the way an almost identical battle is taking place across the way in Aleppo, where it’s also a town being held by terrorists, jihadists. And that is horrible, the Syrians are bombing innocent people. The media just plays the government line to hilt.
Ron Paul: Sometimes I’ve noticed, when you talk about ISIS, that ISIS will be on one side and then the other. One time we might be helping them, but the next time they’re the monsters. Sorting it out is very, very difficult, the way I find it.
Daniel McAdams: We hear a lot of atrocity stories about people living in Mosul and the tears of occupation. I’m sure a lot of that is true, I’m sure it was no picnic. And then we’re seeing a lot of signs of celebration in Iraq in the villages that are leading up to Mosul when they are liberated from ISIS, there’s a lot of celebration there. But if you look at the alternative media, we see a lot of celebration in Syria when they kick out Al-Qaida and the al-Nusra Front, but that’s never covered in the Western Media. It’s just interesting to see these parallels and how we’re propagandized.
Ron Paul: I think that one of the interesting suppositions, and it may be more than that, is ISIS knew this is coming and they probably had a plan. I noticed that a city about a couple of hundred miles from Mosul was taken over by ISIS, it was a sort of distraction, and then maybe it was recovered again. But this whole thing that they might do a lot of distraction. The other thing is, is this possibility that may be ongoing at the moment of ISIS people who are saying, “We’re not going to all die in Mosul, we’re going to go on to a better fight”, and they go up into Syria and join the fight up there. That, to me, means there might be a token short term victory in Iraq and with Mosul, but at the same time, it might be a tremendous explosion of activity regarding Aleppo and what’s going on in Syria.
Daniel McAdams: This is another example of, first of all, how confusing the whole area is, and how U.S. foreign policy is impossible and irrational. Of course, in Iraq fighting against ISIS, we’re sort of aligned with the Shiite Militias backed by Iran. But, of course, Iran is on a different side in Syria, so we’re against them there. We do know that it’s being reported now even in mainstream media outlets that ISIS is going into Eastern Iraq, and it maybe a case where that might be an advantage to U.S. foreign policy, which remains “Assad must go”. If you get a few thousand more jihadists infiltrating into Syria, you can cause a lot more trouble.
Ron Paul: But it seems like Turkey would like to get into the action too. They claim, or the reports are that they probably have 500 special forces there. They would like to be participating in the battle for Mosul. And then the Iranians threaten and say, “Don’t you dare do that, or you’re going to get us very upset with what you’re doing”, so that’s another factor. We have Sunni and Shiites and Kurds and Turks and all these interests there. And then again, United States has an interests, you know, and it doesn’t seems like peace is the goal. It seems almost if you had predicted and had said in 1990, well no, the goal is not to take over Iraq and provide peace, it’s to keep things going for a while, let’s keep the antagonism, let’s not have a victory, let’s have perpetual war for perpetual war spending.
And you say, “Well, that wouldn’t have been a bad prediction”. But the big question is, could possibly anybody have a strategy like that, or do you think that they just have unintended consequences? No, we would never plan to have perpetual war, we intended to make them a democratic state, and make them as good as we are, because we know all about honest elections, even though there are a couple of people in this country who still believe that our elections could be rigged, can you believe that.
Daniel McAdams: That would never happen, would it? But yes, conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact, we did get bogged down, we have been continuously bombing. But I think also the people who supported the Iraq invasion are still dying – that’s not the right word – are still desperate to have a victory narrative. I think that’s why the media is playing up the battle for Mosul as if somehow it will erase the past 13 years of carnage and disaster that were the problems that came from the U.S. invasion in the first place. If we can just get a good news story about Mosul, everything else will be forgiven and forgotten. It’s not going to end that way, I don’t think.
Ron Paul: But it’s been safe to analyze what’s been going on there for a long time, and not be too far from what has happened, because I remember I was not in Congress at the time that the battle of the Persian Gulf War for Kuwait. We had a group that said, “No, let’s not mess around with this, it’s going to lead to trouble”. No, it led to an immediate victory, but then the bombing continued and it led up to 2003, and it goes on and on. So even with the victory of 1991, the victory of 2003, and mission accomplished and then the victory again, and then we had to have a resurgence of troops, and then they took the troops out too early. And now we have another major event going on in Mosul, but this is to eradicate ISIS.
Even if they do seem to have another victory, I predict, and it’s not because there’s great intuition on this, but just common sense tells me that there’s going to be no victory, because the setting isn’t right for this. It’s going to end up with more war that’s constant, and yes, maybe for a whole somebody will declare a victory, but it is so messed up over there that the war and the factions in Iraq are long blowing up, when are they going to settle the relationship between Iran and Iraq, and the Shiites, who are more or less in charge of the two. That’s going to go on, so even with Mosul, that’s not going to solve it. I think people could sit back and say, “You know, this is a precise battle, we can do this, we can route them, and we can have a type of a victory”. But I think Syria is even messier, I don’t think there’s any temporary victory up there to declare all of a sudden that the country is once again a unified Syria and Assad is president. That’s not going to happen.
Daniel McAdams: In Iraq the U.S. is behind the government there, and in Syria the U.S. is favoring the insurgents, so you have a complete topsy-turvy. But looking at the battle of Mosul is interesting, first of all, the media is playing the numbers game. I think we have a chart up here that we can show who the players are. This is according to U.S. military officials via CNN.
Total ISIS fighters are 5,000. Total forces fighting ISIS are 108,500.
That seems pretty lopsided. And now we see in the media that just in this first week, about 800 ISIS were killed, they lost about 20% of their forces in the first week. That sounds like a good news story, and the media is playing this, delivering these good news stories after good news stories. But I think, as you pointed out, this excitement of a quick victory is not going to last.
Ron Paul: See, what this doesn’t measure is the acceptance by the people in these cities. Because ISIS has been in there, it’s not been very pleasant, but, a lot of times a few people can take over and they can be tolerated or accepted by the community. But those numbers there indicate to me that there’s no way that ISIS is going to be maintaining Mosul. If they can, that says something about our training of troops, and our giving them orders, and our CIA and special forces and our bombs and all these things; and yet we can handle this. This was the same attitude during Vietnam, all the money and bombing and killing, there were more bombs in Vietnam than all of World War II. If you don’t have a moral high ground of being the defender of the homeland, because most people …
You know, in Syria, we have the Russians involved, and the rest are a lot of local people who fight among themselves. But then we come in and we become that outside force, and that really makes it messy. To have the different powers settle and come up with something is not going to happen, in other words, this war is going to continue for a long time. I think it will be a lot better off for everybody, of course, if we weren’t involved in it. Our country isn’t going to be less secure, we’re going to be more secure, we’re government to be much wealthier, we’ll have a stronger national defense. So there are all these arguments for not being involved in this mess, and yet, how often are they agitating over this in the presidential campaign? They talk about it a little bit, but it’s really not significant, it’s not a big issue.
The American people aren’t going to be voting for their candidate this time over foreign policy, I think it’s a […], they don’t even know what the difference would be. Besides, in spite of some of their arguments, their foreign policies aren’t too dissimilar.
Daniel McAdams: Yes, the difference is only slight, it’s not a philosophical difference. But when we started talking about the topic for today, we were thinking about winners and losers, and what will happen even with a victory. The other thing that struck me was that they say that a million people may be misplaced from Mosul in this. So you can imagine downstream, if you will. Look at the refugee pressure on Europe last summer, how will that increase. Look at the pressure maybe on the U.S., I wonder Hillary Clinton very Donald Trump what to do with these refugees what will happen. I think this could really be destabilizing to Europe, especially.
Ron Paul: But you know who may be winning, maybe it’s Soros, because his philosophy is that he wants disruption, he wants the spread people as a form of Marxism. Of course, in their type of Marxism there is always the elite that takes care of them, whether it’s economic Marxism or social Marxism. There’s an elite, and they may be the bigger winner of this, because just think of what it’s done to Europe. They measure it by chaos, because they don’t want borders, they want one world, and one world government. Less emphasis on borders doesn’t necessarily bother me, as long as you have private property and different things, but to get rid of borders and then have a super government … Sort of like trade, they say, “Yes, we’ll have free trade, but we’re going to have managed trade by the WTO”, so it’s completely different.
I think, right now, probably one of the biggest victors will be the social Marxists, you know, cultural Marxism. Even in this country, it’s hard to believe the American people would ever think that there’s people in our government that would be called “cultural Marxists”. And yet, what do they do? I do support a lot of openness in travel and immigration if it’s done on a voluntary agreement, and there are no subsidies and no coercion and no taxation. Here we have a president who by edict, by the presidential order, can decide, “Should we bring in 5,000 or 100,000, and I’ll tell them to go to this city and this city, and we’ll give them a lot of money and it will be good for the economy. And this is moral, this is morally correct, you’re a bunch of bigots if you’re not for this”. So it looks like cultural Marxism might be one of the biggest victors here.
Daniel McAdams: I think there already is a backlash forming in Europe, and I think it’s going to rip Europe apart in many ways. Hungary, led by Viktor Orban has really been upfront in resisting Brussels demands that they accept refugees. And they’ve been joined by a couple of the other former Soviet satellite countries in the east and Central Europe. The other issue is we have presidential elections in France coming up, where you see the rise of the National Front Party, which is very strongly anti-immigrant. You’ve seen some early election victories for the Alliance for Germany in Germany, which are the anti-immigrant parties. We saw BREXIT, which I think was motivated by the immigration issues to a degree. So you’re really seeing splits, and how is Europe going to be able to hold itself together, especially with a million new people knocking on its door?
Ron Paul: I want to make it as clear as I can, that there’s a big difference between an orchestrated migration for the purpose of reassembling the people of the world, and charging the people through taxation and welfare programs and forcing them on, compared to a voluntary immigration/migration problem. This country has welcomed immigrants, if you take the people who suffered under Castro, thousands of people came in here and different countries like this. This was a little bit different, but always the government gets involved. Originally, our immigration policies involved having a sponsor and they got paid for and you weren’t handed a government check of thousands and thousands of dollars and getting all kinds of benefits. So there’s a big difference between the two. But, it encourages this type of problem. Of course, with the foreign policy, it is said that we should be over there, remaking the Middle East, and all of a sudden it doesn’t work out as well as it should.
Daniel McAdams: Speaking of Viktor Orban, he said in an interview yesterday that the U.S.’s forced democracy program is failing everywhere, so I think they’re starting to get it.
Ron Paul: Well, maybe someday the world will wake up and the American people will wake up and take a leaf from The Founders, they couldn’t stand the word democracy, because it was dictatorship of the majority. That’s not the way you protect individual liberties, and yet that is what we do. We call ourselves the exceptional nation, and we have to spread our goodness around the world and we have to make sure that we have democratic elections. I think fine, if we set a good example, maybe somebody will copy us. But, believe me, from the very time I first ran for office and got exposed to corruption in politics, to this very day when we talk about our elections, we have a long way to go from a system that really is very, very discriminatory against any alternative than the single party, which is called ‘Democratic Republican’.
That’s a single party, and no matter how much they argue, the policies do not change, we still endorse bad economics, bad monetary policy, bad foreign policy. So we need more individual choices, and it’s not made by the dictatorship of the majority, which is what The Founders didn’t want, they wanted us to have a republic. Yet, we ended up with a mess right now, and that’s part of what has led to our problem in foreign policy, domestic policy, as well as our social policy.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to The Liberty Report, and please come back soon.