The Presiding Officer: The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. Rockefeller: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 30 minutes.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. Reid: Madam President, just so the record is clear, he is filling the spot Senator Carper had.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. Rockefeller: I thank the Senator from Nevada very much.
Madam President, we are here today to debate one of the most difficult decisions that I, at least, have ever had to make in my 18 years in the Senate. There is no doubt in my mind Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator, a war criminal, a regional menace, and a real and growing threat to the United States. The difficulty of this decision is that while Saddam Hussein represents a threat, each of the options for dealing with him poses a threat--to America's service members, to our citizens, and to our role in the world at large.
It is clear none of the options that confront us are easy or risk free. For all of us, the upcoming vote on this critical issue will reflect our best judgment on which path will minimize the risk to our fellow Americans because we all know the risk cannot be eliminated. And that judgment will, in turn, depend on a complex interaction of many factors, some of which we do not know and perhaps cannot know.
It is clear military operations against Saddam Hussein, of the sort that are being discussed, pose serious risks, and we should all admit to that. Any military campaign runs very serious risks to our service members. On paper, we surely have an overwhelming advantage against Saddam Hussein--in the skill, the technology, and, of course, dedication of our Armed Forces.
We defeated Saddam quickly and conclusively in 1991. In the decade since, our force effectiveness has improved dramatically, while many of Saddam's capabilities have deteriorated. But a new battle against Saddam Hussein, if it comes to that, will be very different and much more difficult.
A U.S. victory might be quick, and it might be painless. One hopes that will be the case, but it may not be so. The American people need to know a war against Saddam will have high costs, including loss of American lives. Our confident assertions that Saddam Hussein will quickly be deposed by his own people have in the past been too optimistic.
Presumably, Saddam Hussein will be more determined to use all the weapons and tactics in his arsenal, if he believes that our ultimate goal is to remove him from power. The administration assures us our troops have equipment and uniforms that will protect them from that risk, should that risk arise. We can only hope to God they are right.
We also acknowledge that any military operations against Saddam Hussein pose potential risks to our own homeland. Saddam's government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States.
Finally, we also need to recognize that should we go to war with Iraq, it could have a serious impact on America's role in the world and the way the rest of the world responds, therefore, to America's leadership.
We are told that if Saddam Hussein is overthrown, American soldiers would be welcomed into Baghdad with liberation parades. That may be true. But it is true the people who have suffered most at Saddam's hands are, of course, his own citizens.
For many people around the world, an American-led victory over Saddam Hussein would not be cause for celebration. No matter how strong our case, there will inevitably be some who will see a U.S.-led action against Iraq as a cause for concern. At its most extreme, that concern feeds the terrorist paranoia that drives their mission to hurt America. We can affect how deep that sentiment runs by how we conduct ourselves--whether we work with allies, whether we show ourselves to be committed to the reconstruction of Iraq and to the reconciliation with the Arab world. But we ignore all of that at our peril.
Clearly, there are many risks associated with the resolution we are considering today, but it is equally clear that doing nothing and preserving the status quo also poses serious risks. Those risks are less visible, and their frame of time is less certain. But after a great deal of consultation and soul searching, I have come to the conclusion that the risks to our citizens and to our Nation of doing nothing are too great to bear.
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years. He could have it earlier if he is able to obtain fissile materials on the outside market, which is possible-- difficult but possible. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction.
When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints that he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America's homeland, as well as to America's allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become, therefore, irrelevant.
Americans will return to a situation like we faced in the cold war, waking each morning knowing that we are at risk from nuclear blackmail by a dictatorship that has declared itself to be our enemy, only back then our Communist foes--in those so-called good old days, which, of course, they were not, but in making the comparison between now and then, our Communist foes were a rational and predictable bureaucracy. This time our nuclear foe would be an unpredictable and often irrational individual, a dictator who has demonstrated that he is prepared to violate international law and initiate unprovoked attacks when he believes it serves any of his whims or purposes to so do.
The global community in the form of the United Nations has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass, but the U.N. has been unable to enforce these resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow.
Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.
We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction that he currently possesses or that he will use them against us. But as we do know, Saddam has the capability to do that. We know that very well. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people, and he has ill will toward Americans.
I am forced to conclude on all the evidence that Saddam poses a significant risk. Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States and believe he would not do so. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it is so irrational. If he thought, as he got older and looked around an impoverished and isolated Iraq, his principal legacy to the Arab world to be a brutal attack on the United States, he might not think it is so irrational. If he thought the U.S. would be too paralyzed with fear to respond, he might not think it was too irrational.
Saddam has misjudged what he can get away with and how the United States and the world will respond many times before. At the end of the day, we cannot let the security of the American citizens rest in the hands of somebody whose track record gives us every reason to fear that he is prepared to use the weapons he has used against his enemies before.
As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. The fact that an attack on our homeland has not occurred since September 11 cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future or on any day. We no longer have that luxury.
September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat, the overwhelming threat and reality of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world or in our own country.
There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated.
It is in the nature of these weapons that he has and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.
The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but has failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks--and we should not minimize the risks--we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat. So I will vote for the Lieberman-McCain resolution.
This is a difficult vote, but I could not sleep knowing that, faced with this grave danger to the people of my State and to all Americans, I have voted for nothing more than continuing the policies that have failed to address this problem over the years.
Two months ago, or even a month ago, I would have been reluctant to support this resolution. At the time, it appeared that the administration's principal goal was a unilateral invasion of Iraq, clear and simple, without fully exploring every option to resolve this peacefully, without trying to enlist the support of other countries, without any limitation on the use of United States force in the Middle East region.
The original use of force resolution that the White House sent to the Congress was far too broad in its scope and ignored the possibility that diplomatic efforts might just be able to resolve this crisis without bloodshed. Moreover, it appeared that the administration planned to cut back its efforts in the war on terrorism and shift all of its attention and resources to Iraq, and that would have been a tragic mistake.
I believe the war against global terrorist networks remains the greatest current threat to the security of America over the long term and to our forces overseas. We have seen that in Kuwait in just the last week. America cannot be diverted or distracted from our war on terrorism. In the past month or so, in my judgment, we have begun to see an encouraging shift in the administration's approach. The President stated earlier this week that war is neither imminent nor unavoidable. The administration has assured us that whatever action we take toward Iraq, it will not be permitted to divert resources or attention from the war on terrorism internationally.
Secretary Powell has been working with the U.N. Security Council to put together a new resolution to make clear that Iraq must disarm, or face the consequences. We have already begun to see some encouraging movement on the issue of Iraqi disarmament. Other Security Council members--I mentioned France and Russia, as well as other Arab States in the Middle East--have begun to talk seriously about forcing Saddam to comply with the U.N. resolutions. Saddam Hussein has begun to make offers on inspections and disarmament, offers that, while inadequate so far, indicate that he has at least begun to move off his hardline position against inspections.
Obviously, much important and very hard work remains to be done. That will take tough negotiating with the other members of the U.N. and a firm line with Iraq. We need to be realistic about how best to move forward.
Any headway we are making toward getting Saddam to disarm has not occurred in a vacuum. U.N. members did not just suddenly decide to debate a new resolution forcing Iraq to disarm. Saddam Hussein did not just suddenly decide to reinvite U.N. inspectors and to remove the roadblocks that had hindered their efforts in the past. Progress is occurring because the President told the United Nations General Assembly that if the U.N. is not prepared to enforce its resolution on Iraqi disarmament, the United States will be forced to act.
At this point, America's best opportunity to move the United Nations and Iraq to a peaceful resolution of this crisis is by making clear that the United States is prepared to act on our own, if necessary, as one nation, indivisible. Sometimes, the rest of the world looks to America not just for the diversity of our debate, or the vitality of our ideals, but for the firm resolve that the world's leader must demonstrate if intractable global problems are to be solved--and dangerous ones at that. So that is the context in which I am approaching this vote.
This resolution does authorize the use of force, if necessary. Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail. That is just the core issue. It is the only core issue. And whether we vote on it now, or in January, or in 6 months, or in 1 year, that is the issue we will all have to confront.
War--if it comes to that--will cost money. I and the Presiding Officer dearly wish we could use that money for other domestic purposes--to address the very real needs that West Virginia, Michigan, and other States face in this tough economy. But, ultimately, defending America's citizens from danger, their safety, and their security is a responsibility whose costs we must bear because this is not just a resolution authorizing war; in my judgment, it is a resolution that could provide a path to peace. I hope that by voting on this resolution now, while the negotiations at the U.N. are continuing, this resolution will show to the world that the American people are united in our resolve to deal with the Iraqi threat, and it will strengthen the hand of the administration in making a final effort to try to get the U.N. to deal with the issue. Given the difficulty of trying to build a coalition in the United Nations, I could not, in good conscience, tie the President's hands.
The administration is in negotiations on which the safety and security of all Americans depend. I believe we must give the President the authority he will need, if there is any hope to bring those negotiations to a successful conclusion. So I will vote for the Lieberman-McCain resolution. Preventing a war with Saddam Hussein-- whether now or later--must be a top priority. I believe this resolution will strengthen the President's hand to resolve that crisis.
By my vote, I say to the U.N. and our allies that America is united in our resolve to deal with Saddam Hussein and that the U.N. must act to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction.
By my vote, I say to Saddam Hussein: Disarm or the United States will be forced to act. We have that resolve.
September 11 changed our world forever. We may not like it, but it is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans' lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. Reid: Madam President, we have had a number of unanimous consent requests granted that listed the order of speakers. In effect, now, we have a new one that will make more sense. We have cleared this with both cloakrooms:
Senator Sessions will be recognized for 30 minutes; Senator Carper will be recognized for 20 minutes; Senator Ensign will be recognized for 20 minutes; Senator Cantwell will be recognized for 30 minutes; Senator Bob Smith will be recognized for 15 minutes; Senator Bob Graham will be recognized for 30 minutes; Senator Conrad will be recognized for 30 minutes.
Following these speakers, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on final passage of H.J. Res. 114, as under the previous order. After that, if anybody else wishes to speak--and we have a number of people who have indicated they would like to--they can do that. It will be probably 12:30 or 1 o'clock if everybody uses their time.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Reid: Madam President, people have been granted this time. If they could read a little bit faster or eliminate a paragraph or two, some people would appreciate that.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCain: Madam President, very briefly, I thank the Senator from Nevada. As I understand it, I ask the Senator from Nevada, we have Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Shelby, Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Santorum, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Dayton, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Mikulski who are still scheduled to speak after that.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. Sessions: I thank the Chair, and I thank the leadership for the work they have put into this bill. I thank Senator McCain. It is great to see Senator John Warner here. He helped write the 1991 gulf war resolution and led its successful vote in this body, which served the body exceedingly well. That was a courageous act that he led at that time.
Mr. Warner: Madam President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks.
Mr. Sessions: Mr. President, any contemplation of the use of military force is a very serious matter and calls for the Congress, the peoples' representatives, to be engaged and to discuss and debate the issue. I do not believe the Lord is pleased when his children fight--and according to my faith, all people are creatures of one Lord and precious in his sight.
In my view the resort to war can never be considered something to glory in but must be viewed as an act that is taken as a result of human failure, and where after serious consideration, it is concluded that alternatives are worse.
When the status quo presents more dangers than the war the most just, the most logical, the most moral thing is to fight. I wish it were not so but my experience and my best judgement tells me this is the way we live in this transitory world. I truly respect the pacifist--it is a position with a long and honored tradition in my faith--but whether it is by judgement or lack of faith, I do not go there.
To have a just war one must reasonably believe the ultimate goal of the violence will be to produce a good result--a better condition than existed before. And while as leaders of the people of the United States we must focus primarily on the just national security interests of our country, we, as enlightened, moral and decent people, ought to ask ourselves, whether our actions will ultimately benefit the world and even our adversary. Will the future for all be better or not?
Further, we should consider our national heritage of promoting peace, freedom and prosperity. War obviously destroys peace, but if the result can be to create a safer and more peaceful world, war can be an instrument of peace.
Afghanistan has had two decades of war. Our strong military action to totally defeat the Taliban government has given that brutalized country its best chance for peace, freedom and prosperity in generations. We cannot guarantee it, but great optimism exists for a positive future that could never have been possible under the oppressive, hateful, bigoted Taliban.
The practitioners of the art of "realpolitic" may sneer at the concept of free countries in the Arab world, but I am proud of the results of our military action in Afghanistan, not only because it represented just retribution for their support of attacks on the United States but also because we have left that oppressed country better than we found it. We liberated the people of Afghanistan from the most brutal circumstances.
Can anyone forget the scenes of men beating women on the streets for the most insignificant or imagined acts? No, I am proud of our wise and brilliant use of force.
I also remember such actions played a positive role in our nation's founding. Indeed, one can go down to Yorktown, as I did recently, and visit the site of the final American victory over the British. As one considers that climactic victory, after years of war and many defeats inflicted by the skilled British military, one learns that our victory would not have been possible but for the intervention of the large French fleet at Yorktown, and that fleet's victory over the British in a major battle.
With no ability to retreat or resupply, the cornered General Cornwallis had no choice but to surrender. This French action aided our liberation immensely and have served as a bond of loyalty between our nations even to this day. If the French were justified in the use of military force to help liberate us, may not our use of force in years to come be seen by the world and the people of Iraq in the same positive way. Can such a positive result be guaranteed? Of course not, but I and many others believe the chances for any improved Iraq's government are greater than some think.
Still, we must clearly remember that we cannot guarantee any nation, so liberated, future success. There are limits on our power, our reach and our resources. I am very pleased that under the leadership of President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, we have only a few more soldiers in Afghanistan than we have in Kosovo. The fate of Afghanistan will be up to their people ultimately. We can help, and we have, but their final fate will be in their hands--as it should be.
It is also important to consider that the threats to the United States do not come from free and prosperous states but failing ones. They fail because of flawed governments.
Thus, I say the President is right to reject a half century of valueless, cynical, diplomatic wordplay, words that sound good but are totally disconnected from reality, and to establish a new foreign policy based on our venerable heritage of honest and direct discussion of issues and values.
I am somewhat puzzled that those who have long advocated our taking steps to aid poor countries in the world do not recognize the possibilities for good that can come from a change in government. It seems there is still a strong strain of "blame America first" about. Many had rather complain about our imperfections, real or imagined, than to see the possibilities for a better world.
I strongly believe that America is a force for good in the world. The London based "Economist" magazine has recently produced a special insert for that magazine called "Present at the Creation: A Survey of America's World Role". It concludes that a strong America is good for the world and notes that America's national interest, "offers the clearest match there is to a world interest. The desire for unimpeded trade, the rule of law, safety and security, the protection of property and the free movement of property and capital match world needs, not just American ones."
We are a good, decent and, yes, powerful world leader. I am proud of our history of being, time after time, on the right side of world issues and am very pleased we have a President that understands the new world we are in and who has the courage worthy of the great people he leads.
It is important to point out that if force cannot be avoided, our action will not be against the people of Iraq or the nation of Iraq, but it will be against the brutal, illegal, Saddam Hussein regime. It is a regime that has caused more destruction than any existing in the world today. The people of Iraq will be the greatest beneficiaries of our victory. At this moment, pursuant to U.N. resolutions, our forces are attempting to enforce an embargo against Iraq. It has been only partially successful and it is leaking more and more. The Arab world complains, with much truth, that the embargo only hurts the people, the children of Iraq. Saddam Hussein continues to build places and weapons of mass destruction while his people suffer.
It has been eleven years. How long must the United States continue to carry this burden to enforce a policy that is not significantly hurting the regime but hurts innocent civilians? How can we justify this morally?
There are certainly dangers in military action. While we can hope and believe that if war commences it will go well and that our people will be viewed as liberators and that many Iraqi forces will not fight but defect to our side. We cannot know that. While I am certain we will prevail, I cannot know for certain how tough this war will be. We must recognize there are dangers. The American people understand there are risks and so do all of us. One thing is sure, our magnificent military will work tirelessly to prevail in this conflict with the lowest possible number of personnel killed or injured. But, we know the risks are great and losses could be great. While our forces will work to minimize civilian casualties and to solicit Iraqi military units to defect, such is not certain. There could be civilian losses.
As to the risk of an attack on Israel, cited by many, we should ask what Israel has to say about it. They are clear. It is a decision that is left to the United States. If you must act, do so. Israel is prepared to take the risk.
Well, that's the big picture as I see it. Our motive is good, our goals positive and realistic, and our leaders honest, careful, principled and have the courage to act on those beliefs. Some jaded politicos sneer and say that this is just politics, but I know it is not. I know the vision that President Bush has to protect his people and improve the world. His courage has already placed him at personal risk. These people, after all, have tried to assassinate one former President of the United States. In addition, in acting on his beliefs, he is laying it all on the line. He has told us repeatedly he would not look to polls to decide what actions he should take as our leader.
President Bush is acting honorably and with integrity. He is informing the American people, consulting with Congress, conferring with world leaders and trying to work with the U.N. apparatus. He has altered his tactics to win support from others, but his goal has not changed. Ultimately, if his views are proven false, and all the predicted disasters come true then he will surely pay the price at the ballot box. But, I don't think so. Neither do most of those in this body. I think he is correct and though the road may be difficult and dangerous, I am confident his Iraq policies will succeed as have his policies in Afghanistan. I truly believe that peace, freedom, security and prosperity will be enhanced not reduced as a result of our actions.
It is important to recognize that while this resolution could lead to war, it also offers the best chance we have to avoid war and to achieve security. The distinguished Democratic Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has objected to the President's statement that he has not decided to go to war while he asks for a resolution to allow war. But, this is not contradictory. This Congress knows the score. We know Saddam Hussein's deceitful manipulations, his lies, his violence against the Iraqi people and their neighbors, and the constant attacks against our aircraft, even firing on them with missiles this last week. We know he only allowed inspectors into Iraq in 1991 to save his regime. He did it out of fear.
I agree with former President Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, who said at an Armed Services hearing, that he thinks it is unlikely that Saddam will ever accept "unfettered" inspections. A strong resolution is essential so that Saddam Hussein knows there will not be another Congressional session to meet and discuss these same issues again. He must know without the slightest doubt, that the man he is dealing with, President George W. Bush, has full and complete authority, as commander-in-chief, to use our armed forces to protect our security and to remove him from power, if need be, if he does not comply and disarm.
Who knows, in that case maybe he will relent. Nothing clears the mind so well as the absence of alternatives.
Maybe he would choose to abdicate and allow a new government to be formed. Maybe parts of his army would defect, or parts of his country would revolt. Indeed, the "Washington Times", running an article from the "London Daily Telegraph" reports yesterday that
Members of Saddam Hussein's inner circle are defecting to the opposition or making discreet offers for peace in the hope of being spared retribution if the Bagdad dictator is toppled, according to Iraqi exiles.
One defector came from the Iraqi security services, which form the regime's nerve center. Kurdish groups say:
They have received secret approaches from military commanders offering to turn their weapons on Saddam when the war begins.
Columnist Morton Kondracke wrote today that there are many possibilities for a regime change without a war. He notes Idi Amin took exile. As the pressure mounts, as the circle tightens, these are among possibilities for achieving our goals short of a full scale conflict.
Yes, it is quite true that the President has requested our authorization to use force, but he still hopes he will not have to use it. For us to not grant him that authority would be only to allow the President to continue negotiations but require him to come back to Congress another time (while we are in recess perhaps) for an authorization to use force. To state that position is to expose its fatal flaw. Such an action would eliminate any chance for a real agreement.
Saddam Hussein will know what we have done. He will know that the President cannot until Congress meets again. He will know that the fateful moment has not come, and that he can continue to delay and maneuver. Clearly, we must authorize the use of force if the President finds it necessary. Otherwise this whole process is a charade. I am confident a majority in this body understand this fundamental concept, or else, the strong vote that is coming would not occur.
Some say, we are acting unilaterally, "upsetting" the little nations. But, it was not the United States that invaded Iran resulting in a prolonged and brutal war costing over one million lives. It was not the United States that invaded Kuwait, precipitating an international effort, overwhelmingly led by America, to roll back Saddam's conquest. It was not the United States that has systematically violated 16 U.N. resolutions--resolutions Saddam Hussein agreed to in order to save his regime.
The unilateralist is Saddam Hussein. The United States, on the other hand, has worked assiduously with our allies, Arab nations, other nations and the United Nations to develop a policy that will end the menace presented by Saddam Hussein.
Only the "blame America first crowd" would make such an argument. Indeed, we have been patient many times over these eleven years. So patient, so docile, that it has encouraged Saddam Hussein to miscalculation.
Amazingly, several Senators have objected to the resolution because they believe we must have the full support of the United Nations. This is suggested in several ways.
They argue, "Why now?" Why not let the United Nations vote first. Why not have the Congress "come in behind a U. N. resolution?"
This argument is dangerous and counter-productive to our goals. Unless, of course, one's real goal is simply to wish the whole matter to go away and to not bring it to a head.
First, a U.N. Resolution is very hard to obtain. The primary problem is that any resolution can be vetoed by any one of the permanent security council members, which includes China, Russia and France. These countries may demand concessions in exchange for their votes. They may just refuse. No reason is required.
Secondly, this is our military. Funded, built and staffed by Americans. The American people did not sacrifice to create the greatest military in history to allow China, Russia or even France to have a veto over its use. It is no wonder that these nations would like, through the mechanism of the United Nations, to seize control over our military and to use it as they will. The wonder is why we are even discussing it seriously. Of course, we want to solicit the United Nation's support and aid. After all, Saddam Hussein is in violation of sixteen U.N. Resolutions. Why is the U.N. not anxious to act to bring him into compliance? Former Secretary of Defense James Schlessinger said recently in an Armed Services hearing that,
This is a test of whether the United Nations--in the face of perennial defiance by Saddam Hussein of its resolutions, and indeed by his own promises--will, like the League of Nations a century ago, turn out to be an institution given only to talk.
The President has frankly and courageously framed the question to the U.N. He has stated plainly that Saddam Hussein is in violation of sixteen U.N. Resolutions and is a danger to the region and the world. He has made it clear that it is his duty to protect the American people from this threat and that he intends to do so. But, he expressed support for the U.N. programs and urged the U.N. to take action, to be a relevant player in this crisis. He urged the U.N. not to sit on the sidelines. He made it clear that no change was unacceptable. Since then he has worked steadfastly to win the necessary support in the U.N. and the Security Council. He has humored, maneuvered, pleaded and, I am sure "promised" to gain support. Maybe the U.N. will arouse itself and take action. Nothing could do more for its credibility.
But there are limits. This Congress must not crawfish or we will thereby tell Russia or France that they have a veto over our actions. It will encourage their resistance. If Russia knows Congress has allowed them to decide the issue, their power is even greater--it is absolute.
Now, if members of this body oppose bringing the Iraq matter to a head and oppose any use of military force then let them come out and say so. It is wrong, however, and harmful to America to take an indirect approach that gives the appearance of support but which would undermine the execution of our policy.
Yes, it would be very desirable to have U.N. support to deal with the Iraq problem. But, the best way to get it is to let them know we will act even if they don't.
I agree with former Secretary of Defense James Schlessinger that while the doctrine of prevention is sound and historical and has been applied in tougher cases than this, it is not necessary here. Schlessinger rightly says that,
In an ongoing conflict, the issue of pre-emption is close to meaningless.
The truth is, we have been at war with Iraq since 1991. In essence, Saddam Hussein sued for peace to save his regime. The world in effect said we will end hostilities, but you must give up your weapons of mass destruction and agree to full inspections to prove that you have.
Since then, we fly missions every day to enforce the northern and southern no-fly zones. Iraq fires surface-to-air missiles at our planes almost daily and we bomb in response regularly. Iraq has shot down three of our predator, unmanned aircraft, in recent months. We defend the Kurds. We keep forces in Kuwait and in the region to deter another attack by Iraq. The war has never ended. In 1988, the Congress voted for the "Iraq Liberation Act". We declared it U.S. policy to effect a regime change in Iraq and authorized the President to carry out that policy. In fact, it gave five million dollars to Iraqi resistance forces and called for trying Iraqi leaders for war crimes.
Those who are reluctant to use force have focused on concerns about the idea of using pre-emptive force to protect our security. They have forgotten the war has never ended, that our aircraft pilots are being fired at daily.
It is undisputed that our actions are taken as part of a U.N. program to protect the world from Saddam Hussein's aggression.
Thus, we have every basis to use force to enforce the agreements Saddam Hussein made and to react to the hostile fire he brings to bear against us.
My fear is that the President is being forced to deal with the tendency to move to the lowest common denominator that always results from U.N. negotiations, and will not be able to obtain the clarity we need from any resolution approved by the Security Council. So far, he has been courageous and effective. Let us stand with him so we can enhance the chances of a good resolution, not undermine his efforts with a lack of support.
Regardless, it must continue to be clear that no one nation or group of nations will be allowed to block our duty to defend our people. Especially when we are dealing with a regime that violates U.N. resolutions and continually directs hostile fire at U.S. forces.
This is an important time for America. We have a duty to protect our nation and our deployed forces from attack. We have the ability to do so. Our superb military personnel stand ready to put themselves at risk to promote our just national interests.
We are fully justified in acting under the venerable doctrine of preventing an attack upon ourselves. When there is a smoking gun or a mushroom cloud it is too late.
For those who have anxiety about the pre-emption doctrine, and I do not in this case, I urge them to remember that we have been in an actual state of military hostilities with Iraq almost since 1991. He shoots at our pilots and aircraft regularly. He has violated, in 16 ways, the conditions that he agreed to save his evil regime.
Let's not waiver, let's not delay, let's not go wobbly. Let us produce a strong vote for this strong resolution. Then the situation will become clear. We will say to Saddam Hussein, once and for all, you will disarm or, like the Taliban, you will fall.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. Carper: Madam President, I come before the Senate this evening to join in this debate, to express my support for our Nation's effort to address the threat Saddam Hussein poses, and to lay out the concerns that I believe must be addressed if we are to succeed in disarming Iraq. The President has called upon Congress and the American people to support his administration in its effort to eliminate Saddam Hussein's hold on weapons of mass destruction. The Congress has responded by taking up this resolution authorizing the use of force, if needed, to strip Iraq of those weapons and the ability to deliver them. A number of serious questions have been raised in this historic debate. It is critical that President Bush and the Congress fulfill our obligation to all Americans, and to the international community, by ensuring that those questions are faithfully addressed.
Saddam Hussein has shown himself to be an implacable foe of the United States. It is essential that we confront the threat that he represents. The question is not whether we confront it, but how we confront it. We must make every effort to build a multilateral coalition. If we do so, we raise the likelihood of bringing a measure of stability to a turbulent part of the world. If we do so, we can minimize the impact of any conflict on the Iraqi people, on Iraq's neighbors and on American and allied forces. And if we do so, we will serve to strengthen, not undermine, the international laws and institutions that have served us well in the years since World War II.
Leadership is a responsibility that cannot be taken lightly. Leadership in deciding whether to resort to military force requires the greatest deliberation and consideration. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in recent testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, said that "no one with any sense considers war a first choice--it is the last thing that any rational person wants to do. And it is important that the issues surrounding this decision be discussed and debated."
It is clear to me that millions of Americans are discussing and debating the issues (that are before us this evening. I have heard from Delawareans throughout my state. I have heard from veterans who know the harsh realities of war. I have heard children who can scarcely imagine it. I am comforted by the fact that the American people, and their representative in Congress, have been thoughtful and deliberate in discussing the challenges that we face and how we might confront those challenges.
This is not the first time that I have faced the question of how we ought to deal with Saddam Hussein's intransigence in the facet of international law. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I voted in 1991, along with many members of this body, to authorize President George Herbert Walker Bush to use military force to expel the armed forces of Iraq from Kuwait. I am proud of that vote, and I am prouder still of the American and allied forces that went on to liberate Kuwait.
Having engaged in that debate, and witnessed Saddam Hussein's refusal to yield except when confronted with the threat of force, I have no illusions about the danger he poses to regional stability and international security today. I am concerned that Iraq remains in violation of more than a dozen Security Council resolutions. I am alarmed that the regime of Saddam Hussein continues to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of the international agreements it promised to comply with at the end of the gulf war. Above all, I feel strongly that we must not allow Saddam Hussein to develop the capacity to acquire or deploy nuclear weapons.
This past Monday night, President Bush addressed our Nation. He reminded us that there are significant risks to the United States both in acting and in not acting. If we choose not to act, we must remember that, in Saddam Hussein, we are talking about a man who has invaded his neighbors, showing a reckless disregard for the stability of a volatile region. We are talking about a man who has risked his own survival, and that of his regime, to indulge his own vengeance. Finally, we are talking about a man who has used weapons of mass destruction before, even against his own people.
The need for action, however, does not preempt the need for an objective and open debate on the course of action we choose and the consequences of our subsequent actions. Bringing the weight of the world's disapproval to bear on Iraq; demanding unfettered inspections of every potential weapons site; and preparing for any military or diplomatic contingency offers us the best chance to face down our foe now and to ensure his permanent disarmament.
Like many in this chamber, I believe that it is essential for us to work closely with the international community to reinstate inspections that will lead to Iraq's disarmament. But it's imperative that such inspections be unhindered. Inspectors must have the freedom to go where they want, when they want. They must have the right to talk to whomever they wish and to provide immediate amnesty to any Iraqis who provide information that might place them at risk of reprisal from the regime. Inspections are only valuable if they are truly a means of stripping Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction and his ability to deliver them. If Saddam Hussein's regime is unwilling to accept this level of intrusion, both he and Iraq must be prepared to accept the consequences, including the likelihood of a war they will lose.
Looking back, one of the principal reasons we were so successful in the gulf war was because former President Bush and his administration did the hard work necessary to build a broad, strong international coalition before unleashing our military might. Our current President and his aides similarly did the hard work necessary to build such a coalition after the attacks on our country last fall. This up-front investment has paid off in the arrests of Al Qaeda operatives throughout the globe, as well as in the elimination of the regime that was harboring them in Afghanstan--though the war on terror is far from over. These are prime examples of America's global leadership in action at its very best. They are examples that we should emulate now.
If we fail to uphold our international leadership responsibilities, and act without regard to the views and interests of our allies, we invite our isolation in the world. We undermine our position as a preeminent force in global policy and order. We make more difficult the task of securing the assistance of the international community in helping Iraq to return as a responsible member of the community of nations. We invite additional terrorist attacks on Americans at home and abroad, as well as put the fragile governments of many Muslim nations further at risk. Moreover, if we are perceived to act without the sanction of international law or authorization of the United Nations, we further fuel anti-American resentment in the Arab world, thereby increasing the threat to Israel. On the other hand, if we make an effort to work in concert with our allies, we have the opportunity to strengthen the international institutions that will be critical in addressing future threats.
At a time when 24-hour news networks have made the images of war instantly accessible, our nation's recent military successes have made the awful realities of war appear ever more remote: images of laser- guided bombs falling on indistinguishable targets; missiles lighting up the night sky. For an entire generation of Americans, our military efforts have come to be seen almost as a casualty-free video game, where no one gets hurt and few families face the knowledge that their son or daughter will not be coming home.
But like a handful of my colleagues here in the Senate, I have known a different side to war, having seen if first-hand. During my 23 years in the Navy, including service in Southeast Asia, we witnessed soldiers, sailors, and airmen leaving for missions from which they would never return. I've met countless veterans who left part of themselves on the battlefield. Some of those heroes serve in this very body today.
War can--and often does--enact a terrible price. It should be entered into as a last resort. So, the decision we face this week, which may lead to war, is not one that I take lightly. Nor do any of us.
For the past 11 years, people in this country and elsewhere have second-guessed the decision of former President Bush to stop short of entering Baghdad in 1991. I have never criticized that decision. That flat, open sands on which our soldiers fought and won is a far different--and less dangerous--terrain than the streets of major Iraqi cities. There, our enemy's tactical advantage likely would have enacted a far heavier toll on American lives.
If the course of events in this decade ultimately leads to another conflict with Iraq, and I hope it does not, the risks associated with urban warfare may well become a reality this time. Before they do, it is critical that we prepare ourselves, and the American people, for the losses we may endure in a military campaign of that nature.
We must also face head-on the fact that, if war should occur, liberating Baghdad from Hussein's power will not solve every problem in the region. It will, however, force us to find answers to a difficult set of new questions. Among them, how will we operate in Iraq after a military victory? A number of competing factions will vie for control if Saddam Hussein is removed from power. Who will we support? How will we convince them to work together? We will need a coherent policy to help Iraq make the transition to political and economic stability. We will also need a great deal of patience and fortitude. Otherwise, we risk creating a less stable and more explosive Iraq than we face today and, worse yet, an even more volatile region.
We have learned from our missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan that bringing meaningful change to unstable nations requires enormous time, resources, and effort. We have been relatively successful in restoring stability in Bosnia and Kosovo, but it has not been without a painstaking commitment over many years. Indeed, the U.S. and our NATO allies continue to maintain a significant troop presence in both of those nations.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, has demonstrated how minimal troop commitments can impair efforts to restore peace in a war-ravaged nation. Hamid Karzai and his coalition government continue to express Afghanistan's ongoing need for adequate support and resources from the U.S. and other nations if the Afghan people are to realize the peace and democracy of which they dream.
In a post-war Iraq, the need for ongoing U.S. and allied intervention is likely to be far greater and far more costly. Experts in military operations maintain that creating a more stable Iraq will require the continued presence of between 50,000 to 100,000 troops. Not for a few weeks or months, but for several years.
There is another question that I believe must be addressed as we move forward: How will we bear the financial burdens of such a mission? It is impossible to place a price tag on the lives that might be saved by disarming Saddam Hussein. At the same time, it would be fiscally irresponsible to take on such an operation without at least considering the impact of a potential war on our already fragile economy. Over the past 2 years, we have watched the stock market plummet, making its sharpest decline in 70 years. The budget surplus that we worked so hard to achieve in the 1990's is gone. All the while, current estimates project the likely cost of U.S. military action in Iraq to be in the range of $100 billion. These estimates do not include the prospect of long-term peacekeeping operations in the event of a regime change. The presence of tens of thousands of U.S. troops for months--maybe years-- once the fighting has ended will cost billions more. This is a cost we should not bear alone.
I believe the principles and questions I have laid out today were best embodied in, and addressed by, the bipartisan resolution drafted earlier this month by Senate Richard Lugar and my fellow Senator from Delaware, Joe Biden--two Senators of intellect and skill in the area of international diplomacy. The Biden-Lugar draft resolution focused on the most critical task at hand--disarming Saddam Hussein. Senators Biden and Lugar carefully crafted this resolution to give President Bush the flexibility he needs to garner international support now for a tough, new U.N. Security Council resolution. Their draft resolution also provided the President with the authority to unleash U.S. military force against Iraq should he determine that Iraq's continued intransigence makes such action necessary. I'm disappointed that we will not have the opportunity to vote on that alternative this week. Having said that though, I do believe that the Biden-Lugar proposal contributed appreciatively to the change in direction that this debate has taken in recent weeks, particularly in its emphasis on acting together with our allies. That change in tone was clearly evident in the address of President Bush to the American people this past Monday night. What he said encouraged me and served to reassure much of our nation.
The President spoke of the importance of working with the United Nations to craft a tough inspection regimen in Iraq. I agree with him. The President said that the U.N. must be "an effective organization that helps keep the peace." I agree with him. The President told the American people that our primary goal in this endeavor is to strip Saddam Hussein of his ability to manufacture and deploy weapons of mass destruction. Again, I agree with him. We also heard the President state that he hopes the policy he has laid out will not require military action, although he acknowledged that it might. I hope it will not. We all share that hope in the Senate as members of this body prepare to cast our votes and to authorize the use of force if certain conditions are met.
In closing, let me say for much of our Nation's history, the United States has been an instrument for peace and justice and a better life for the people of many nations throughout the world. That is our heritage. It is one of which we can be proud.
There have been times in our history when we have had to go it alone. But history has shown that we have been most successful when we provided the leadership that compelled other nations to join us in a just cause--two World Wars, the Cold War, the Persian Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism. Stripping Saddam Hussein, once and for all, of the weapons that would enable him to create havoc and great loss of life is a just cause. Other nations know that, too.
If we make the case to them forcefully, skillfully, and persistently in the weeks ahead, they will join us. I am certain of it. The burden before us--disarming Iraq--is one we should not bear alone. If the President uses the powers inherent in this resolution authorizing the use of force with great skill and diplomacy, we will not have to bear this burden, and face this challenge, alone. An armada of nations, again, will join us, and together we will make this world, at least for a little while, a safer and saner place in which to live.
I yield back my time.
