The Presiding Officer (Mr. Corzine): The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized for 40 minutes.
Mr. Reed: Mr. President, The Senate is engaged in a momentous and historic debate. The President seeks the authority to use force in our on-going confrontation with Iraq.
The Constitution entrusts the Congress with the exclusive power to "declare War." It is our Constitutional obligation to consider the President's request carefully and conscientiously, to review the evidence thoroughly, to weigh the costs and the consequences. We are called upon by the Constitution to make an independent judgment, not an automatic acquiescence.
I begin this debate acknowledging several unassailable conclusions.
First, we are already in a confrontation with Iraq. Since the Persian Gulf War, we have maintained military forces in support of international sanctions against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Our pilots are routinely fired upon as they enforce the "No Fly" Zones. Thus, the question is not whether we should confront Iraq. The question is how best to thwart this outlaw regime and for what ultimate purpose.
Second, Saddam Hussein is a despicable person who oppresses his people as he threatens his neighbors. Despite his military defeat in the Persian Gulf War and the imposition of sanctions, Saddam continues to defy United Nations resolutions and, of most concern, continues to develop and attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. But, our judgment cannot rest simply on his unalloyed evil. We must consider our actions more broadly. Will we enhance the stability and security of the region? Will we strengthen our security not just for the moment, but for the future as well? What kind of precedent will we establish?
Third, we will decisively defeat Iraqi military forces in any conflict. The skill and courage of our forces, aided by superb technology, will overwhelm Iraqi resistance. The military outcome is certain, but the costs and the consequences are uncertain and could be quite grave.
As I consider the proper course of action, as I weigh the uncertainties as well as recognize what is apparent, I return again and again to one further conclusion. Whatever we do will be better done with others. Thus, it is imperative that we commit all of our energies to encourage the United Nations to live up to its founding principles: to be more than just an international forum for discussion; indeed, to be a force for collective action in the face of common dangers. President Bush said it very well when he addressed the United Nations' General Assembly:
We created a United Nations Security Council so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we've dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all and to a system of security defended by all.
Acting alone will increase the risk to our forces and to our allies in the region. Acting alone will increase the burden that we must bear to restore stability in the region. Acting alone will invite the criticism and animosity of many throughout the world who will mistakenly dismiss our efforts as entirely self-serving. Acting alone could seriously undermine the structure of collective security that the United States has labored for decades to make effective. Acting alone today against the palpable evil of Saddam may set us on a course, charted by the newly announced doctrine of preemption, that will carry us beyond the limits of our power and our wisdom.
For these reasons, I will vote against the Lieberman-Warner resolution granting the President the permission to take unilateral military action against Iraq regardless of the immediacy of the threat. And I will support the resolution proposed by Senator Levin.
The Levin resolution recognizes the inherent right of the President to use our military forces to defend the United States. This resolution supports the President's demands that the United Nations promulgate a tough, new framework of inspections to disarm Iraq, and this resolution gives the President the right to use American military forces to enforce the resolve of the United Nations. The Levin resolution recognizes Congress' responsibility to promptly consider the President's request to unilaterally employ American forces if the United Nations fails to take effective action.
On Monday in Cincinnati, President Bush said, "Later this week the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked the Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands." That is what the Levin resolution provides.
Those who advocate unilateral action assume that time has run out in dealing with Iraq. They see an immediate threat that will yield only to immediate military action. Thus, it is important to assess the Iraqi threat as best we can.
Iraqi conventional forces have been seriously degraded since the Gulf War. Saddam does have a cadre of Republican Guards that are capable and fought with determination in the Gulf War. One cannot totally discount Iraq's conventional forces, but they are not capable of defeating United States forces. The most dangerous aspect of Saddam's military power is the possession of chemical and biological weapons and his aspiration to develop or acquire nuclear weapons.
Today, Iraq has the capability to use chemical and biological weapons within the region to augment conventional forces that have been seriously degraded since the Gulf War. These capabilities, however, must be viewed in terms of intentions in order to fully evaluate the threat
An assessment of Iraq intentions reveals areas of consensus and areas of disagreement. It seems clear that Saddam is intent on rebuilding his military and acquiring weapons of mass destruction including nuclear devices. His expulsion of U.N. inspectors certainly supports this view. Moreover, it may suggest that the inspectors posed a very difficult obstacle to his plans and their future utility cannot be summarily dismissed. Saddam continues to aspire to be a regional power. Unchecked, Saddam would threaten his neighbors and endeavor to claim the mantel of leadership in the Gulf and, perhaps, in the greater Muslim world.
There is, however, a lack of consensus on two significant points. Will Saddam risk the survival of his regime by threatening or conducting attacks on his neighbors? Will Saddam provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups who can or will use them against the United States or any other nation?
At the heart of discussions of Saddam's possible plans is the general question of whether deterrence and containment will work against Iraq as it did in the Cold War. Saddam certainly has a lot to lose in any conflict with the United States. Both his life and his lifestyle would be in great jeopardy. Saddam also seems to be devoid of any ideology other than self-preservation and self-aggrandizement. Saddam is a secular thug, not a messianic leader. There is evidence that he will not put his regime at risk. During the Gulf war, the United States clearly signaled that any use of Iraq of chemical or biological weapons against Coalition forces would result in his destruction. Saddam accepted a humiliating defeat rather than risk losing power.
Of course, there are many who accurately point out that Saddam has already attacked his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait. He has used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds. Still, one is left with the question whether even this despicable behavior is a product of calculation rather than delusion.
And complicating the record of his actions against Iran is mounting evidence of our covert support both before and after he had begun to employ chemical weapons.
The second issues involves Saddam's willingness and ability to cooperate with terrorists. After September 11, this issue takes on a new and powerful emphasis. Despite extraordinary and justifiable efforts to establish a connection between the Iraqi regime and the attacks on New York City and the Pentagon and the downed aircraft in Pennsylvania, no such links have been established. Indeed, if credible links exist, the President, in my view, could employ unilateral force under the terms of the congressional resolution passed on September 14, 2001.
Recently, however, administration officials are publicly, but cryptically, trying to make the case that there is a definite connection between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaida. Secretary Rumsfeld and Condolezza Rice have asserted at various times that Iraq is harboring al-Qaida fighters in Iraq, that information from detainees indicates that Iraq provided chem-bio weapons training to al-Qaida, and that senior-level contacts between the Iraq regime and al-Qaida have increased since 1998. They have offered few details beyond Secretary Rumsfeld's claims that the information is "factual," extremely accurate" and "bulletproof."
But according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, these claims are disputed by "a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats." The article quotes an unnamed official declaring:
analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books.
The Inquirer article examined some of these administration claims and found that "the facts are much less conclusive."
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the record, as follows:
From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 8, 2002
Officials' Private Doubts on Iraq War
(By Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott)Washington.--While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.
These officials say administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses, including distorting his links to the al-Qaeda terrorist network; have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq; and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.
They say that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Hussein poses such an immediate threat to the United States that preemptive military action is necessary.
"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews with the Inquirer Washington Bureau. No one who was interviewed disagreed.
They cited recent suggestions by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network working together.
Rumsfeld said Sept. 26 that the U.S. government had "bulletproof" confirmation of links between Iraq and al- Qaeda members, including "solid evidence" that members of the terrorist network maintained a presence in Iraq.
The facts are much less conclusive. Officials said Rumsfeld's statement was based in part on intercepted telephone calls in which an al-Qaeda member who apparently was passing through Baghdad was overheard calling friends or relatives, intelligence officials said. the intercepts provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working with the Iraqi regime or that he was working on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq, they said.
Rumsfeld also suggested that the Iraqi regime had offered safe haven to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar.
While technically true, that, too, is misleading. Intelligence reports said the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, a longtime Iraqi intelligence officer, made the offer during a visit to Afghanistan in late 1998, after the United States attacked al-Qaeda training camps with cruise missiles to retaliate for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But officials said the same intelligence reports said bin Laden rejected the offer because he did not want Hussein to control his group.
In fact, the officials said, there is no ironclad evidence that the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working together, or that Hussein has ever contemplated giving chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda, with whom he has deep ideological differences.
None of the dissenting officials, who work in a number of different agencies, would agree to speak publicly, out of fear of retribution. Many of them have long experience in the Middle East and South Asia, and all spoke in similar terms about their unease with the way that U.S. political leaders were dealing with Iraq.
All agreed that Hussein was a threat who eventually must be dealt with, and none flatly opposed military action. But, they say, that U.S. government has no dramatic new knowledge about the Iraqi leader that justifies Bush's urgent call to arms.
Some lawmakers have voiced similar concerns after receiving CIA briefings. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D., Ill.) said some information he had seen did not support Bush's portrayal of the Iraqi threat. "It's troubling to have classified information that contradicts statements made by the administration," Durbin said. "There's more they should share with the public."
Several administration and intelligence officials defended CIA Director George Tenet, saying Tenet was not pressuring his analysts but was quietly working to include dissenting opinions in intelligence estimates and congressional briefings.
In one case, a senior administration official said, Tenet made sure that a State Department official told Congress that the Energy and State Departments disagreed with an intelligence assessment that said hundreds of aluminum tubes Iraq tried to purchase were intended for Baghdad's secret nuclear-weapons program. Analysts in both departments concluded that the Iraqis probably wanted the tubes to make conventional artillery pieces.
Other examples of questionable statements include: Vice President Cheney said in late August that Iraq might have nuclear weapons "fairly soon." A CIA report released Friday said it could take Iraq until the last half of the decade to produce a nuclear weapon, unless it could acquire bomb-grade uranium or plutonium on the black market.
Also in August, Rumsfeld suggested that al-Qaeda operatives fleeing Afghanistan were taking refuge in Iraq with Hussein's assistance. "In a vicious, repressive dictatorship that exercises near-total control over its population, it's very hard to imagine that the government is not aware of what's taking place in the country," he said. Rumsfeld apparently was referring to about 150 members of the militant Islamic group Ansar al Islam ("Supporters of Islam") who have taken refuge in Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. However, one of America's would-be Kurdish allies controls that part of this country, not Hussein.
Mr. Reed: In addition, a full assessment of the assertions of Secretary Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Rice is hampered by the failure of the Central Intelligence Agency to provide an updated National Intelligence Estimate of the current situation in Iraq.
Given the subjective nature and inherent difficulty of evaluating the intentions of such an opaque structure as the Iraqi regime, much more weight must be given to their capabilities. Saddam does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. But looking at Iraqi capabilities alone, the threat is not immediate. If unchecked, the threat is inevitable and dangerous. But, at time have the opportunity to pursue a collective solution to Iraq. This is an approach that offers a greater chance of success and a greater chance of long-term stability.
Whatever course of action that we choose, we cannot absolutely ignore or disregard the views and opinions of other countries. With the exception of Great Britain, there are few nations that are supportive of unilateral action.
The nations that surround Iraq are critical to the success of any military operation and to the long-term success of our policy. And, regional support for unilateral American military operations is equivocal at best.
Turkey seems likely to allow use of its airbases but without great enthusiasm and with great concern about the Kurds. Saudi Arabia opposes toppling Saddam and has stated it will allow the use of its bases only if the operation is authorized by the United Nations. The potential loss of Saudi bases and overflight rights will limit our flexibility. King Abdullah of Jordan has described a military confrontation with Iraq as a "catastrophe" for the region. His reluctant support is based on our commitment not to seek permission to introduce American forces into Jordan.
The Iranians have declared their intentions to remain aloof from the conflict. Iran is a bitter foe of Iraq, but its government is no friend to America. The gulf states seem resigned to the possibility of war. Mubarak of Egypt has repeatedly spoken out against a unilateral attack, and it is unclear whether Egypt will allow the use of its airfields.
As the New York Times pointed out with regard to the Gulf Region and the Middle East:
The support for the United States is not enthusiastic, and is based on any American military action having the backing of a United Nations resolution.
As we debate, the Iraqis are preparing their responses to our diplomatic and military initiatives. Their options are shaped by their capabilities and, I believe, the lessons learned in their disastrous defeat in the gulf war and their study of the success of American military forces in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan.
Their first option is the one that they are currently pursuing; the admission of U.N. weapon inspectors under the most lenient conditions possible. The Iraqis are not unmindful that inspectors in Baghdad are the best insurance that they can have against a military attack by the United States. Even if this Congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq at his sole discretion without regard to the United Nations, it is difficult to conceive of the President ordering an attack with U.N. inspectors in Iraq carrying out a U.N. resolution and presumably telling CNN that their mission is proceeding.
The State Department is engaged in difficult negotiations to broker a new resolution while at the same time delaying the entry of inspectors into Iraq. If these negotiations fail, the United States would find itself in a precarious position. Not only will we be deprived of a new and strengthened enforcement mechanism, we likely will be exerting all our formal and informal influence to prevent the reintroduction of inspectors. Blocking the reentry of inspectors would further isolate us in the world. If we succeed in brokering a new and more effective inspection scheme, there is a significant probability that Iraq, despite it repeated defiance and rejection of tougher standards, will initially comply. Saddam has consistently practiced the politics of survival. Accepting inspectors, even inspectors with unconditional and unconstrained access, will buy time. If Saddam refuses to accept inspectors in accord with a more robust U.N. resolution, he seals his fate.
The recognition by the administration that Iraq may capitulate in the face of a strong Security Council resolution might tempt them to halfhearted pursuit of United Nations authority. They should resist those temptations. It is clearly preferable to operate with a U.N. authorization whether it is contained in one resolution that promulgates a new inspection scheme backed by the explicit authorization of force or a two-staged process that introduces inspectors with enhanced powers but defers the question of enforcement until Iraqi non-compliance is established.
If inspectors are not reintroduced into Iraq and Iraq is convinced of a pending American-led attack, then the possibility of terrorist attacks by Iraq within the United States must be considered. In a letter read before a hearing of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, CIA Director, George Tenet, stated that:
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons.
But, Tenet went on to warn:
Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack against his country could not be deterred "he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action."
And, if Iraq is contemplating terror in America, then Iraqis are more than likely to be considering preemptive strikes on our forces as we build up prior to an attack. One of the most compelling lessons of the gulf war and subsequent American military operations is that letting the United States build up its military forces is tantamount to victory for the United States. If we can assemble in sufficient numbers the best warfighters in the world with the best military technology in the world, we will win the military battle every time and certainly in the case of Iraq.
If Hussein's goal is to kill U.S. soldiers and slow down an invasion, he might strike in the early days of a campaign at regional ports or airfields when those facilities are filled to capacity with U.S. forces gathering for the fight. In 1997, a Pentagon team of 18 generals and admirals projected different ways such an attack could take place. In one scenario, small teams of Iraqi infiltrators unleashed mustard gas from an old bread truck outfitted with agricultural sprayers. In the projected scenario, the truck was mistakenly let on base by troops who thought it was delivering food. In another scenario, a helicopter took off from a barge floating about 15 miles from the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia and sprayed cholera into the air, infecting thousands of U.S. Marines preparing to board ships. The Marines didn't fall ill until they were at sea. Finally, the generals envisioned speedboats, loaded with chemical and biological weapons, ramming into docks near key U.S. ports in Bahrain and Kuwait. Added to these scenarios is the possibility of a missile attack similar to the one launched against our rear areas during the gulf war.
A chemical or biological attack on our forces as they assemble would disrupt our operations but not ultimately defeat them. It would increase our casualties and costs. It also has the potential to sow panic in civilian ranks and make our presence a greater burden on supportive governments.
If Saddam does not choose to launch preemptive attacks on our build- up, there is increasing evidence that he will use chemical and biological weapons against our forces as they commence the attack. Last Tuesday Prime Minister Blair released a report, which stated that Saddam might have already delegated authority to employ chemical and biological weapons to his youngest son, Qusai, who leads the Republican Guard. Reportedly, Saddam had, prior to the start of the 1991 Persian Gulf ground war, issued specific orders for the use of WMD if the allies were winning the ground war and crossed a line 200 miles south of Baghdad.
Once again, Iraqi chemical or biological attacks against United States forces will not halt our attack. American units are trained and equipped to operate in chemical or biological environments. However, such attacks can cause delay, disruption and increased casualties. General Hoar, former CENTCOM Commander, testified before the Armed Services Committee that prior to offensive operations in 1991, he was briefed on a simulation conducted at Quantico that indicated the possibility of 10,000 casualties to the assaulting Coalition forces due principally to the potential use of chemical and biological weapons. We have improved our protective equipment and monitors since the gulf war. We have devoted great effort to developing techniques to target and suppress opposing systems that could deliver chemical and biological weapons. Nevertheless, chemical and biological attacks would pose serious risks to our forces and to the civilian population.
It is important to note that both General John Shalikashvili and General Wesley Clark in testimony before the Armed Services Committee agreed that operating under United Nations authority would tend to raise the threshold for the Iraqis to use weapons of mass destruction. Operating alone, the United States runs the risk of Iraqi gambling that international opinion will not be as critical of Iraq in the employment of these weapons.
If the first lesson of the gulf war is don't let the United States build up its forces, the second lesson is don't fight the United States at long range in open terrain. Our troops, training and technology give us decisive advantages to locate and destroy targets with integrated fires at great range. The deserts of Iraq are ideally suited for our forces and will be the graveyard of the Iraqi army if they chose to fight us there.
Unless the Iraqis learned nothing from their defeat, they will not fight our forces in the open. They likely will conduct a strategic withdrawal to Baghdad.,fighting at choke points like rivers and urban areas. But, they may also conduct a scorched earth policy as they withdraw to slow us down and deny us speedy avenues of approach to Baghdad. Suddam ordered the oil fields of Kuwait destroyed as his army fled. He may do the same as his forces withdraw. Moreover, since our major avenue of approach is through Southern Iraq, the traditional home of Iraqi Shiites, Saddam is unlikely to have any reluctance to inflict damage on a community that he has always suppressed.
If Iraq forces can maintain any coherence in the face of our assault, particularly our air assaults, then they will most likely make their major stand in Baghdad. In the streets and alleys of Baghdad, our technological advantages are reduced. It would become a more difficult battle.
The International Institute of Strategic Studies reports that Iraq's "wisest course would be to hunker down in cities, distribute and hide its forces, and fight from those places. It cannot be assumed that the Iraqi Army would deploy armour in the open desert, as in 1990-91, firing from static positions and presenting an immobile target for airpower, as the Taliban did. Many Iraqi weapons and command and control centers will be placed near apartments, hospitals, schools, and mosques."
General Hoar testified at the Armed Services Committee of a "nightmare scenario" that needs to be planned for--six Iraqi Republican Guard divisions and six heavy divisions reinforced with several thousand antiaircraft artillery pieces defending the city of Baghdad, resulting in urban warfare with high casualties on both sides, as well as the civilian populace.
We are all mindful that, during the Gulf War, Saddam launched 39 Scud missiles against Israel as a means to provoke the Israelis to retaliate. It was a desperate attempt to change the dynamic of a war that was leading to a humiliating defeat. He hoped that Israel could be drawn into the war and their involvement would cause the Muslim world to abandon the international coalition and rally to Saddam. The Israelis did not take the bait. They endured missile attacks, refrained from retaliation and watched as coalition forces dictated terms to a defeated Iraq.
Given Saddam's history and his options, it is highly probable that he will once again seek to draw Israel into the conflict as a means of rallying the Muslim world to his cause. He has a limited number of missiles to fire at Israel. However, it is likely that Palestinian forces like Hamas and Hezbollah will launch either sympathetic or explicitly coordinated attacks against Israel. This later dimension was not such a formidable factor in 1991. Today, the potential for suicide attacks and widespread violence in the West Bank and elsewhere in Israel is more pronounced.
According to Western and Israeli intelligence sources, Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon are reported to have amassed thousands of surface-to-surface rockets with ranges sufficient to strike cities in northern Israel.
The administration hopes that the government of Israel will exercise the same restraint that it showed in 1991. That might be a forlorn hope. On September 26, Prime Minister Sharon said, "If Iraq attacks Israel, but does not hit population centers of cause casualties, our interest will be not to make it hard on the Americans. If on the other hand, harm is doneto Israel, if we suffer casualties or if non- conventional weapons of mass destruction are used against us, then definitely Israel will take the proper action to defend its citizens." We all recognize the right of Israel to defend itself. The Prime Minister's first responsibility is to his people.
But we also understand that Israeli retaliation would put great pressure on Muslim countries to either end any support for United States efforts or to actively oppose our efforts. Here again, a strong argument can be made that an operation sanctioned by the United Nations might give these countries sufficient justification to participate with the international community rather than oppose efforts to decisively deal with Saddam.
We are prepared militarily to counter all of these Iraqi threats. Our first priority will be to establish an air defense system to protect our forces as they enter the region. Our ground based air defense batteries and active aerial patrolling will help mitigate any potential Iraqi threat from the air. We have had extensive collaboration with Israel on the development of their Arrow air defense system. This collaboration and other collaborative efforts will be accelerated to help ensure that any potential Iraqi attack on Israel will be frustrated.
In the conduct of offensive operations, we will prepare the battlefield with intensive air strikes. But, one of the factors that must be considered in this air campaign is the inadvertent release of chemical or biological agents as a result of our bombing. Press stories suggest that the Iraqis have placed sensitive installations in urban areas as a way to protect them from the expected air campaign. We could discover that we have unwittingly created a chemical or biological release that would be exploited by the Iraqi government not as confirmation of their treachery but as an attack on our conduct of the operation.
Indeed, the potential use of chemical and biological weapons is one of the great uncertainties of a battle against Iraq. The President and Secretary Rumsfeld are trying to dissuade Iraqi field commanders from deploying these weapons by sternly and correctly warning them that they will be held accountable for war crimes.
It is an open question whether this warning will be effective with individuals who owe their position and lives to Saddam and who would likely face swift and fatal retribution from Saddam before they would be subject to international law.
We are prepared to counter Iraqi responses to our military operations. But, there are certainly no guarantees that we can do so without significant casualties to our forces and to the civilian population. Much of the Iraqi response turns on the willingness of his forces to resist and to follow his supposed orders to employ weapons of mass destruction. It is difficult to predict these dimensions of loyalty and morale. But, this battle seems likely to produce more causalities and costs than the Persian Gulf war for the simple reason that the President has repeatedly associated our use of force with regime change. In a battle to remove Saddam from power, his desperation and the desperation of his loyalists will cast this as a battle to the death. Unfortunately, one of the hallmarks of dictators is that many people suffer and die, many innocent people, before they meet their demise.
We will prevail in any battle against Iraq. But, military victory brings with it a host of other problems. Again, an examination of these issues strongly suggests that our tasks would be immensely aided if we initiated our operations with the broadest possible international coalition vested with the authority of the United Nations.
The Administration's avowed policy of "regime change" combined with the discretion to wage a unilateral attack on Iraq will inevitably lead to the indefinite occupation of Iraq by United States forces. Such an occupation will be expensive and will impose significant stress on our military forces that are already "stabilizing" Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other areas across the Globe.
Moreover, governing Iraq is not one of the easiest tasks. It is a country with at least three major factions; the Kurds in the North, Sunni Muslims in the Center and Shiite Muslims in the South. The potential for disintegration along ethnic and religious lines is significant.
Our tasks in Iraq will be immensely complicated by the probable damage resulting from the military campaign. Although we will deploy precision missions and will be acutely conscious of minimizing collateral damage, a "scorched earth" policy by the Iraqis compounded by the possible release of toxic agents and the possibility of extensive combat in built-up areas may lead to significant damage and significant civilian casualities.
Again, after the battle, we would look for international assistance to rebuild Iraq. That assistance would be more forthcoming if we initiated operations with international support rather than without it.
Even before calculating the costs of postwar reconstruction of Iraq, we must recognize that military operations in Iraq will be expensive in direct costs and could have significant and detrimental effects on our economy.
Estimates of the direct cost of an attack on Iraq range from $50 billion to $200 billion. For perspective, the gulf war cost about $80 billion in direct incremental costs, and our allies paid much of this expense.
Indirect effects on our economy are hard to estimate, but there is great concern that military operations in Iraq will further complicate a fragile economy.
One of the most potentially volatile economic aspects of a war in Iraq will be its effect on the price of oil. According to the Congressional Research Service, "the effect of a sudden and sustained increase in the price of oil could deepen an existing recession or push an already weak economy into recession."
Our occupation of Iraq will place us in control of the world's second largest oil reserves. Directly or indirectly, we will become a major force in the international politics of oil. That fact will not be lost on other producing nations and the world at large. There is a real danger that our motivation to remove Saddam will be ignored or quickly forgotten, and our attack on Iraq will be seen as old fashion imperialism. Once again, this perception is most likely to develop if we conduct our operations unilaterally.
To date, the administration has not publicly suggested how they intend to deal with Iraqi oil. This is a major issue of international importance touching the economic, diplomatic and security priorities of the world.
A unilateral attack by the United States will engender worldwide criticism as already suggested by the comments of many leaders around the world and reflected in public opinion in many countries. A swift victory without significant casualties or damage will mute this criticism in many quarters, but it will not easily extinguish the resentment of our "go it alone" policy. A difficult and costly struggle will accelerate this criticism and create problems that will inhibit diplomatic and economic progress on other fronts.
One of the unintended consequences of a unilateral assault on Iraq may be our efforts on the War on Terror; the unfinished business of completely destroying Al Qaida before they strike us again. Despite all the good faith assurances of military leaders that they will not lose focus on the War on Terrorism, the scale of the proposed operation, the notoriety and the huge risks involved will inevitably draw resources and attention from the War on Terror. Further complicating our efforts on the War of terror is the real possibility that many countries that are now assisting us will greet future requests with studied indifference or denial.
The President asks for the authority to use force unilaterally. This request must be viewed in the context of the newly promulgated National Security Strategy. The core of this new strategy rejects deterrence and embraces preemption.
According to this strategy, the United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction--and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
There is no argument that the United States, like every nation, retains the right to defend itself from an imminent hostile act. But, this strategy goes much further. It appears to be based not on the immediacy of a hostile act but simply on the "sufficiency" of the threat. It fails to make any distinction based on the nature or timing of the threat. As such, it can be applied or misapplied to a wide range of adversaries.
There is no question that the United States must act preemptively against terrorist like al-Qaida. The nature of the threat and the immediacy of the threat leave no other option. Al-Qaida has no significant and identifiable institutions, resources or assets to hold hostage as a means of changing behavior. Al-Qaida has no significant and identifiable institutions, resources or assets to hold hostage as a means of changing behavior. Al-Qaida makes on pretense of attempting to participate in the international system of nation states. Al-Qaida is not motivated by calculated self interest as much as it is motivated by an apocalyptic impulse for the destruction of its enemies and the ritual sacrifice of its adherents. There is no choice but to seek out these terrorists and destroy them before they attack us again.
But al-Qaida is different that many threats that face us. And, extending this notion of preemption and bolstering it in resolutions that give the President authority at his discretion to conduct unilateral military operations starts us down a potentially dangerous path.
We are debating Iraq today, but will we apply this preemptive doctrine to Iran or North Korea tomorrow? How do we prevent others from adopting this same strategy if we have enshrined it as the centerpiece of our policy? For example, how to we counsel the Indians to refrain from preemptively attacking Pakistan or vice versa? From New Delhi or Islamabad, the threat looks "sufficient" and striking first is enticing.
In this first test of the President's new National Security Strategy, we should be very careful to define the scope of his authority to avoid being swept up in a doctrine that appears to have few limits.
Our continuing confrontation with Iraq is fraught with danger and challenge. Much is uncertain, but I believe that one point is quite clear. Leading an international coalition to enforce United Nations resolutions, as the President spoke of in Cincinnati, is the surest way to reduce the dangers and ensure the long-term success of our policy. It is for this reason that I support the Levin resolution.
Great events will turn on our deliberations. But, at this moment, my thoughts are not on historic forces. Rather, I think about the young Americans who will carry out our policies. They are prepared to sacrifice everything. We owe them more than we can ever repay. One thing that we certainly owe them is our best judgment. I have tried to give them mine.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Corzine: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding officer (Mr. Reed): Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Corzine: I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma for the opportunity to go forward.
I rise tonight to express my views on what has become the overriding issue before the Senate and our Nation as we close out the 107th Congress: the authorization of the use of military force against Iraq and in what context and under what circumstances such an operation might take place.
This issue has been one on which I have given much thought and careful analysis. This decision quite literally has life-and-death implications, not just for our courageous men and women in uniform but for all Americans across our homeland, for your family and mine.
No decision we take can weigh more heavily on our hearts and minds, particularly in light of the exposed vulnerabilities and tragic events of September 11, 2001. This is as important an issue as any of us will ever face. It requires a sober and calculating weight of the costs and benefits to our Nation.
Ultimately, our decision will shape the nature of the U.S. leadership as the first among equals in the post-cold-war world, and our decision sets a precedent for ourselves and for those who take our lead in the 21st century for good or evil.
No one argues that Saddam Hussein's brutal and criminal regime should be tolerated. He and his regime are evil. We all accept that Hussein uses torture and terrorism to advance his political goals. He constructs palaces while his people starve. He stockpiles biological and chemical weapons. At times, these weapons of mass destruction have been unleashed against the Iraqi people and his enemies.
All of us are concerned that the Iraqi regime is seeking to develop nuclear weapons contrary to international law and U.N. resolutions. With deference to these circumstances and probable facts, the United Nations and the world community must act swiftly and decisively in response to the Iraqi threat.
As my colleague Senator Kerry said earlier today: The question is not whether Saddam Hussein should be held accountable to disarm; the question is how. Should disarmament be imposed by the United States alone or with the weight of global public opinion behind it? To answer the question how, one needs to consider the context of the broader role America plays as a single remaining superpower.
As I see it, America should make every effort to build a global coalition to achieve our objective of disarming Iraq. This effort should be considered our first priority in these grave circumstances. Building an international coalition will give moral authority to our challenge, share the sacrifices that will be incurred, and set a positive precedent for the future in foreign relations among nations.
The benefits of working cooperatively with other countries have been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II. That is why the United States worked to create the United Nations in the very first instance.
Strangely, this administration has sometimes appeared to consider multilateral support for a military campaign to be an unnecessary inconvenience. Even in light of our unprecedented international support and cooperation following the tragedy of 9/11--some 90 nations if I am not mistaken--it was only after the President delivered his September 12 speech at the United Nations that he began visible and serious outreach to the global community.
This week, the President in his speech in Cincinnati went further to embrace a multilateral approach. I support what he expressed in that speech. In my view, we must reinforce his recent instincts. We all know at the end of the day the United States always retains the inherent right to act unilaterally in self-defense. With that understanding, I believe strongly we must not stop pursuing, however, the support of the world community before acting alone.
The United States may be the strongest country in the world militarily. We still need allies. We need help with logistics. We need intelligence cooperation and overflight rights to help us succeed. That is in the short run. And after the military campaign is over, we will need help in the long run reconstructing Iraq and rebuilding a civil society. But if the world community is not with us when we take off, it will be hard to ask for their help when we land.
Our Nation has been well served if we share the human and financial sacrifices required to prosecute the war and keep the peace, and we will be well served in the future if we follow that pattern. Unless we have the support of our allies, it will be difficult to ask them for humanitarian assistance in helping to feed, clothe, and heal the Iraqi people or reestablishing the rule of law.
It will be difficult to ask for assistance for peacekeeping and nationbuilding activities. In the past, the current administration has been somewhat reticent to support these kinds of operations. As a case in point, we relied on the armed forces of other countries, for example, to restore law and order in Afghanistan. Yet if other countries had not been committed from the beginning, they would have been much less likely to participate once the fighting was over.
Unilateralism also brings with us great costs--most importantly, costs in the precious lives of our men and women in uniform, people who serve us bravely.
It also brings us costs as we saw in the gulf war. The United States had relatively low out-of-pocket expenses. The reason was, we had a coalition of nations. Although the Congressional Research Service notes that war cost about $80 billion, much of that was covered by allied contributions.
Without allies, the United States, it is projected, will have to shoulder by itself the $100 billion to $200 billion pricetag suggested by the administration for the current war. I have seen higher estimates. It really depends on how long our participation in the peacekeeping and nationbuilding efforts will go on afterwards.
It should not be lost on the American people that we are still in Korea, 50 some years after our intervention. In other words, unilateralism is expensive and its cost--crowd out other priorities on the Nation's agenda from our first responders to our first graders.
Unfortunately, by authorizing force before a multilateral approach has been devised, the President's resolution provides no assurance that the world community will be actively involved in either the military campaign or, more importantly, the reconstruction efforts.
In the long run, the Bush doctrine of unilateral preemption embedded in the underlying resolution would set an awful example for the world community--a precedent based on the concept of survival of the fittest.
For generations, the United States has decried the aggression of foreign governments across the globe. We fought the patriotic and just fights against the Nazis and Communists who sought world domination. How in the future can we criticize Russia for attacking Georgia or stop India from taking action against Pakistan or believe Taiwan will be safe from China? Many countries may feel threats, continuing or imminent. They, too, could argue preemptive rights. The underlying resolution would codify the Bush preemption doctrine in precedent and could undermine our moral authority and leadership credibility in limiting future conflicts around the globe.
Furthermore, by advancing a policy of unilateral preemption, we could be encouraging state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and Syria to form unholy alliances with just the kinds of agents of terror that caused the horrific events of September 11. Iran, Iraq's mortal enemy, actually opposes a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Why is that? Perhaps because Iran fears that if the U.S. attacks Iraq today, we might attack Iran tomorrow. Clearly, the thawing of relations between these two U.S. adversaries should give us pause. One can only wonder what Iran's instructions to their agents of terror will be in a world where they feel threatened under a preemption doctrine.
Earlier this week, Senator Graham introduced an amendment which authorized the President to use force against several identified dangerous terrorist groups, including Iranian-linked Hezbollah and Hamas. I supported that amendment because I believe that those foreign terrorist organizations represent an even higher order risk to American security than Iraq.
Like al-Qaida, these organizations have the clear means of delivery. These terrorist groups may already be operating in our homeland. I am concerned that, at some level, Iraq may be a dangerous distraction from America's war on terrorism. While the United States military has certainly disrupted the activities of the al-Qaida network, no one should doubt that al-Qaida and its sympathizers continue to operate. The administration tells the American people this almost every week.
These groups continue to plot ways to undermine the American way of life and our security. As the United States considers its future course of action with respect to Iraq, a potential threat, we must assure the American people that we will not be distracted from the effort to destroy a proven threat, al-Qaida and these other terrorist organizations. That should be our No. 1 priority. It certainly has been in repeated statements by the President. I am also concerned that the resolution we have before us is structured with an overly broad scope. It refers to UN Security Council resolutions that are unrelated to the primary goal of disarming Iraq and eliminating its delivery capacity of weapons of mass destruction.
We must remember that the threat we feel is not from the Iraqi people but from the criminal regime's control of weapons of mass destruction. And second, because the underlying resolution refers to UN Security Council Resolution 678, a resolution that discusses the importance of returning security to the "area," we may inadvertently be permitting military action beyond Iraq. Potentially, some of these structural concerns were addressed by other resolutions that were circulated including one drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar.
There were attempts to define away some of the broader aspects of the concerns I relate to in the underlying Lieberman-Warner resolution, but I am fearful, as I have suggested, that by their reference to other U.N. resolutions that may not be the case.
I certainly believe we could have done better through the Biden-Lugar approach.
Finally, I am troubled my the fact that Congress is being asked to make a decision on a matter of this gravity without being fully informed with all relevant intelligence. It is an unfortunate fact but many of us, and I can speak for myself, have often learned more by reading the New York Times and the Washington Post than by attending the secret briefings provided to Senators.
Even today, we hear about a conflict between what it is the CIA says is the likely response of the Saddam Hussein regime when they no longer have other options and would be the case as presented by the administration.
In the future, I hope that the administration will be more open earlier with secure briefings in the process so that Members of Congress can make fully informed decisions. I think they should be built upon true intelligence.
It is in this overarching context, that I will cosponsor and strongly support the Levin amendment which authorizes the use of force pursuant to a new UN security council resolution demanding swift council resolution demanding swift, certain, and unconditional inspections and Iraqi disarmament. The Levin amendment in no way comprises the US' inherent right to self-defense or Congress' ability to authorize unilateral actions if the UN fails to act. But it embraces the multilateral approach as a first priority.
This course of action, will bring with it all the benefits I have sought to outline, a multilateral approach, without giving up the right of unilateral approach as a last resort. In my judgment, the Levin amendment embraces the need for the U.S. to lead a dangerous world to disarm Saddam Hussein today with a multilateral approach, while setting a pattern and precedent that provides for greater security to the people of the United States and around the world.
That security will be in today's circumstances but it will equally be true as a guide to the future by its precedent. As a matter of conscience, barring substantive changes, I intend to oppose the underlying Lieberman-Warner resolution.
I yield the floor.
