|
02/27/03
Special Order:
We Should Step Away From The Brink Of War With IRaq
HOUSE FLOOR- "Mr. Speaker, our nation is facing a moment of great peril. Poised as we are, with a weak economy, and on the brink of war, each Member of Congress must feel, as I do, the need for deep wisdom in order to address the problems our country faces. Most disturbing to me is that our people are still seriously divided about the merits of war in Iraq and about when, if ever, it should occur.
"Is this really the time for the United States to lead an attack on Iraq, and to make this the immediate centerpiece of our war on terrorism? I am not convinced.
"This is not to suggest that military action and war are never justified. Clearly there are times when force is not only justified, but the most effective means of securing human rights, freedom and security. But knowing when to go to war is as important as recognizing when war is justified.
"In Kosovo, for example, the NATO countries acted for a humanitarian purpose, reflecting our generation's response to the Holocaust and the painful lessons of the 20th century. And unlike other places -- such as Rwanda and East Timor -- where the innocent were victims of tyranny or terror, Kosovo was a place where NATO's military power could be successfully employed to stop genocide.
"Liberating the people of Iraq from one of the world's most repressive regimes and preventing Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are all worthy goals that are beyond reasonable argument, in my view. But are we certain that we have reached the point where war is the only means of achieving these goals?
"A few weeks ago, I joined Senator John McCain and other legislators at the Wehrkunde Conference, a meeting for international leaders in Germany. During the conference, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld confronted the Europeans, challenging them to join in military action to disarm Saddam. Most Europeans balked, and they continue to balk.
"We may not be entirely alone (Britain, Spain, and a few others seem prepared to join a U.S.-led coalition), but we remain largely isolated, and that not only will make success in Iraq harder, it also risks our long-term success in the war against Al Qaeda and terrorism.
"In this regard, the Bush Administration has not been clear with the American people. The Administration speaks of a short war and assured success. But success in Iraq is not just about eliminating Saddam. Many military experts believe that will be the easy part. Success in Iraq also means managing the ensuing humanitarian crisis, the political and social chaos that will follow war, keeping a lid on the Middle East powder keg, thwarting terrorist attacks at home (the likelihood of which increases with military action in Iraq), and occupying and rebuilding Iraq – and doing all of this when our own economy is faltering, energy prices are rising, and domestic priorities like health care and education are crying out for attention.
"Moreover, for those who insist that war against Iraq is essential to our homeland security and protecting our shores from an Iraqi-Al Qaeda attack, I would point out that this Administration's homeland security budget is billions below what objective experts feel is adequate to fund first responders and other unaddressed domestic security needs. The Administration has also shortchanged the Nunn-Lugar program that is absolutely critical for identifying and reducing the proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons materials around the world.
"The appalling truth, Mr. Speaker, is that if Osama bin Laden wants to construct a "dirty bomb" he needn't make alliance with his former enemy, Saddam Hussein. Indeed, Al Qaeda has dozens of possible sources in the Near East and among corrupt smugglers in countries that were previously part of the Soviet Empire from which to choose. Funding for the Nunn-Lugar program helps to cut off this supply, and while the Administration says it supports it -- the program -- like so many others -- takes a back seat to our preparations for war in Iraq.
"Central to my thinking about the current crisis is this simple question. Are we making America safer or not? And on this question, Mr. Speaker, I must say that attacking Iraq without broad-based international support, without evidence of an imminent threat, and without more certain links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, I am deeply skeptical.
"In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, the civilized world stood with us in proclaiming a war on terrorism. Sadly, more than a year later, the global goodwill and solidarity America enjoyed has dissipated.
"Perhaps some of that was inevitable, but much of it is the direct result of the Administration's tactics and the "go-it-alone" tone of our diplomacy. Governor Bush, as a candidate for President, argued for a more humble foreign policy. But the Bush Administration has all too often followed a course of repudiating international agreements and confronting other countries in a way that smacks not of humility but of arrogance.
"The President should be commended for deciding to act through the United Nations with respect to Iraq. And Secretary of State Powell performed admirably in achieving a unanimous Security Council vote giving Iraq a last chance to disarm and instituting renewed inspections.
"Those were steps that earned us the support of the world community. But this support has dwindled as the Administration presses for early action on a timetable that seems to be largely driven by the combat readiness of our troops deployed in the region. In fact, this has gone so far that some members of the Security Council seem prepared to repudiate the resolution they so recently approved.
"Indeed, critics of President Bush wonder whether he ever intended to let the new inspections regime succeed. The Administration made clear that Iraq was in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 before inspectors arrived in Baghdad. And, unfortunately, since then the President's rhetoric has only fueled the perception that America is eager for invasion, no matter what the rest of the world thinks.
"This perception has been compounded by seemingly shifting goals and rationales. President Bush did finally specify disarmament - as opposed to regime change - as the official goal of any U.S. invasion of Iraq. But the Administration's emphasis has changed as it has suited the President's case - it has been weapons of mass destruction one day, potential links to Al Qaeda the next, and Saddam's atrocious human rights record the day after that.
"The point is not that these rationales are unfounded. Saddam is a ruthless tyrant who has attacked his neighbors and terrorized and murdered his own people. He has defied UN resolutions and has given every sign of continuing to try to evade disarmament.
"The point is that it is difficult to believe that the Administration did not opt for war long ago, damning all the potential consequences. Although we could be left virtually alone to bear the costs of winning the war and securing the peace, the Administration has appeared intent on moving forward, seemingly with reckless contempt for international opinion.
"Disarming Iraq may well be important in the larger war on terrorism. But it is a larger war. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are still at large. The Taliban have revived in Afghanistan, and Islamic extremists threaten to overwhelm Pakistan, whose notoriously unstable and corrupt regime has nuclear weapons. We have dragged our feet on leading any peace effort between Israel and the Palestinians, and we haven't come close to defusing the nuclear time bomb that is North Korea.
"I fear that this Administration's single-minded focus on Iraq not only risks damaging our relations with long-time allies, it also threatens to distract us from other, arguably more pressing fronts in our war on terrorism. I am also disturbed by the potential this crisis has for dividing America and Europe. NATO and the Atlantic Alliance have played an essential role in promoting international law and stability. Divisions that weaken this alliance will only make the war on terrorism more difficult, and pose dangerous consequences for global peace.
"We Democrats aren't blameless in the rush to war. Last year, perhaps fearing the electoral consequences of dissent, many Democrats in Congress voted to give the President authority -- no matter the posture of the United Nations -- for whatever action he might choose. I believe that was a grievous mistake in judgment and a reckless abdication of Congressional responsibility for taking the nation to war. That is why I offered my own resolution restoring this authority in Congress and why I voted for the Spratt substitute.
"It would have been better if my resolution or the Spratt substitute had prevailed. But neither occurred – and, while I wish that Congress could revisit its decision, I recognize that the current leadership of the House will not permit that to happen, just as the President would not sign legislation repealing last year's resolution.
"So, the debate on Iraq that should have occurred in Congress last year now must proceed in the media and public rallies.
"For example, the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman came to Capitol Hill to talk about Iraq. To sum up where things stand, he told a story about the man who asked a policeman for directions to a particular destination. The policeman thought for a minute, and responded by saying "If I were trying to get there, I wouldn't start from here."
"Mr. Friedman put it well. If I were to map a course to steer on the question of Iraq, I wouldn't start from where we are.
"Where we are is a year into what the media calls our "showdown with Iraq," with nearly 200,000 troops in the Persian Gulf, ready for combat. We are hurriedly scraping together a barely willing "coalition of the willing," cutting deals to persuade countries to join our fight, cajoling Turkey to accept billions of dollars for the privilege of stationing our troops on Turkish soil. We are allowing the rising temperatures of the Iraqi desert – not the degree to which we have built international support – to dictate the timing of military action.
"This is not where we should be, but it is where we are – and the next steps we take must reflect our current situation.
"Although it seems we are beyond the eleventh hour and the clock is ticking, there are things we can and must do before taking military action against Iraq. I think continued diplomatic pressure and the threat of military action can force Saddam Hussein to disarm, or seek permanent exile abroad. We should continue to apply this pressure through the United Nations.
"Neither the UN nor NATO is perfect, and ultimately the United States alone must decide how to protect America's vital interests. But I am convinced it is in our best interest to preserve and strengthen our decades-old leadership role in core international alliances.
"Employing "quiet diplomacy" – choosing the right words in dealing with other countries – is critical to building support at home and abroad. And support is built through consultation, cooperation, and discussion, not name-calling or coercion.
"The President must be candid with the American people about the true costs of war – measured in lives, time, and money. Although the President would have us believe that we can have it all – a quick, victorious war, tax cuts, and a growing economy – I think this is unrealistic and believe it is his responsibility to be honest with the public about the sacrifices ahead.
"Finally, I think we must be more open to the idea of so-called "coercive inspections" -- using our military build-up in coordination with the UN to test the effectiveness of a more robust inspection and disarmament process in Iraq.
"This would involve putting the most qualified people in the field, providing them with real-time intelligence, destroying forbidden items as soon as they are detected, strictly prohibiting Iraqi flying and driving in the designated no-fly zones, and reinforcing the authority of inspectors with ground troops if necessary. It would also involve testing the willingness of our allies and other nations like Syria, Jordan, and Turkey that have benefited from smuggling goods into Iraq to determine whether they would help enforce a containment strategy against Saddam.
"Coercive inspections might help us begin to climb down the dangerous ladder that we have climbed up in recent months. They could deliver a powerful message of international determination to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction – a message that would not be as successfully conveyed through a barely-supported war.
"Mr. Speaker, I am an optimist by nature, but I am not naïve. Coercive inspections alone may not be enough to disarm Saddam. But I believe they may be the best step now to build greater international support for forcing him to disarm. And as a strategic move in our larger war against terrorism, tightening the international noose on Saddam strikes me as a smarter option – at least in the short term – than opting now for war, with all its known and unknown consequences.
"Make no mistake – the goal of disarming Saddam is worthy. Congress and the UN and countries all over the world have endorsed this goal time and again over the last decade. The disagreement is only about the means. To me the risk seems great that precipitate military action will ultimately lead to chaos, not order – and I think we should not rush to take that risk.
"It is important to remember that America is strong not only because of our military superiority, but also because of our economic and political leadership, our values of democracy, and our moral strength in the world. Our power is unmatched – but the challenge we face now is whether we use it in ways that divide us from those we would lead or in ways that will advance the greater goal of peace and security – including security against terrorism -- for all.
"As things stand today, I fear that the Administration is moving toward division, and is risking more than we stand to gain, and more than we can afford. We need to step back from the brink while we can, and take the time to correct our course."
|