[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        ON THE SITUATION IN IRAQ

                                 ______


                          HON. EDWARD R. ROYCE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 7, 1994

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight the crisis looming in the 
gulf. Saddam is on the move again; this is no small matter: He still 
has over a million people in uniform; 2200 tanks, and 2500 armored 
personnel carriers, and a host of planes and missiles.
  Meanwhile we are stretched thinner than ever around the world, from 
Haiti to Macedonia. Our forces themselves are being diminished at a 
rapid rate: they are down nearly a quarter from 1992, and will be 
reduced by a third by 1999. Marine Commandant Mundy sums it up when he 
says ``Our ability to maintain readiness is on the margin.''
  As I have said on this floor before, our fading international 
credibility is being further complicated by our thinning military 
capability.
  Now, as we all know, our defense plans call for us to be ready at all 
times to fight two simultaneous regional wars, including one in the 
gulf. Currently we have two such contingencies facing us: Korea and 
Iraq; in fact, one could embolden the other.
  Just last month Assistant Secretary Warner said that we should still 
be able to prosecute two contingencies nearly simultaneously. But he 
also stressed that peacekeeping and humanitarian operations would have 
to be sharply reduced if combat operations were to break out in major 
theaters such as Korea or the gulf.
  Secretary Perry and General Powell have sounded similar warnings in 
recent days. The President should listen; we all should listen, or 
pretty soon that hollow sound you hear will be our military.
  We also know the danger in Korea. But listen to these words about 
Iraq from CIA Director Woolsey, less than a fortnight ago:

       * * * Iraq [has] not abandoned [its] goals of dominating 
     the region, threatening [its] neighbors, subverting peace, 
     and acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction and 
     the means to deliver them. * * * Iraq has the largest pool of 
     scientific and technical expertise in the Arab world--over 
     7000 nuclear scientists and engineers alone. * * * His regime 
     is still hiding SCUD missiles, chemical munitions, and its 
     entire biological weapons program. * * *

  Saddam Hussein continues to submit Iraq's people to tyranny--cruelly 
suppressing the Kurds in the north and the Shia's in the south. His is 
a murderous regime possessing and acquiring ever more potent weapons of 
mass destruction; Saddam is a threat to the region and to the United 
States.
  We must take this seriously. Tonight CNN reports 50,000 Iraqi troops 
are on the move. Whatever the purpose--to quell domestic discontent, 
intimidate sanctioners, or to intimidate Kuwait--Saddam must be 
stopped, dead in his tracks, immediately.
  No deals, no trades, no bailouts by former Presidents--it is time 
this administration learn the importance of clear and equivocal words 
and actions.
  The Saddam Husseins and Kim Jong-Il's of the world need to be 
stripped of any delusions they have about our willingness to suffer 
their aggressive behavior, their threats and their bluster.
  Strong action now will save lives later. I urge my colleagues--and I 
urge the President--to speak clearly and forcefully on this threat--and 
the need to stop Saddam--immediately.
  I have made available for my colleagues a brief paper that helps 
frame the current situation in Iraq.

  [From the Center for Security Policy--Decision Brief, Oct. 7, 1994]

 ``I.S.O. Jimmy Carter'': Best Case, Saddam Expects To Be Rewarded For 
               Not Invading Kuwait; Worst Case, It's War

       (Washington, D.C.): Saddam Hussein's threatening moves of 
     the past few days--and the renewed threat they pose to 
     Kuwait--should be a cold shower for President Clinton and his 
     national security team. After all, it demonstrates in the 
     most graphic way imaginable the contempt with which the 
     world's despots now hold America and its leadership.
       Like the other members of what the Center for Security 
     Policy has called the Radical Entente\1\--folks like 
     Somalia's Aideed, Serbia's Milosevic, Haiti's Cedras, North 
     Korea's Kim dynasty, China's gerontocracy, and the Russian 
     imperialists--Saddam has clearly read Mr. Clinton's policies: 
     The United States is no longer seen as a deterrent to 
     aggressive agendas; to the contrary, its hapless policies are 
     now inviting and rewarding them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 clinton's chickens come home to roost

       Let there be no mistake about it: The combined effect of 
     presidential disinterest in security policy, the dismantling 
     of vital defense capabilities and institutions and the 
     chronic inability to define and adhere to a principled course 
     of action in international affairs have left American 
     interests and allies around the world dangerously exposed.
       Saddam Hussein's latest military moves may signal the 
     imminent resumption of hostilities with Kuwait and its 
     allies. Alternatively, they may be a calculated move to 
     secure the immediate lifting of economic sanctions against 
     and other concessions to Iraq--a response he has reason to 
     expect, notwithstanding the Clinton Administrations' initial 
     bluster, given its own past practice and that of its 
     diplomatic subcontractor, Jimmy Carter.


                     so learn the lessons, already

       Either way, a few lessons that should have been learned 
     long ago are now painfully clear: The United States could 
     find very well find itself engaged in two simultaneous 
     regional conflicts in distant parts of the globe. Thanks to 
     the draconian cuts in Pentagon investment and operations and 
     maintenance in recent years--cuts that go well beyond those 
     contemplated by the Bottom-Up Review, a plan that itself 
     would not permit the United States to fight two wars at the 
     same time--the United States would be unable to cope with any 
     appreciable problem in Haiti and mount a concurrent major 
     operation in the Persian Gulf. It should go without saying 
     that this situation also makes transparently obvious why it 
     is absurd to contemplate further overtaxing the U.S. force 
     structure by deploying American troops on the Golan Heights.
       The need for America to be able to project power quickly to 
     distant parts of the world is only increasing, not waning. 
     The United States currently lacks the in-theater capability 
     to attack and defeat a renewed Iraqi attack against Kuwait. 
     It needs, for example, to be able to exploit the unique 
     potential of the B-2 bomber to strike swiftly, decisively and 
     anywhere in a country like Iraq. It also needs to have troops 
     in the region capable of constituting a defense on the 
     ground--not just at sea. The folly of past--and continuing--
     decisions deferring acquisition of greatly enhanced airlift 
     and sealift capabilities is painfully obvious.
       The importance of timely intelligence and the will to 
     respond to early warning: According to press reports, the 
     Iraqi troop build-up has been occurring for a week. If so, 
     the fact that the United States has only begun to respond to 
     this threat is a powerful reminder of: the continuing need 
     for effective strategic and tactical intelligence in the 
     post-Cold War world; the necessity for human sources and 
     methods as well as sophisticated technical intelligence 
     means; and the readiness to initiate long-lead-time actions 
     necessary to respond--even if that requires doing so on the 
     basis of preliminary or inconclusive information.
       It was a gross strategic error to all Saddam Hussein to 
     remain in power at the end of the Gulf War.\2\ The United 
     States has only itself--and some of its more short-sighted 
     regional allies--to blame for making this mistake. No effort 
     should be spared now to bring Saddam's reign of terror to a 
     swift end.
       The prospect that Saddam Hussein was close to getting 
     international sanctions lifted--and may yet do so--is further 
     evidence of the recklessness of dismantling the United States 
     limitations on the overseas sale of strategic technologies 
     and the multilateral export control regime. There is already 
     abundant evidence that Saddam Hussein is successfully 
     rebuilding his military-industrial complex.\3\ In the absence 
     of a complete policy reversal by the Clinton Administration, 
     the danger posed by Iraqi capabilities and those of other 
     tyrants exploiting vanishing Western strategic export 
     controls will become infinitely greater.
       Last, but hardly least, the United States can no longer 
     tolerate a situation in which it, its forces overseas and its 
     friends in the Middle East (like Israel, Kuwait and Saudi 
     Arabia) and beyond remain utterly vulnerable to missile 
     attack. Saddam Hussein did not effectively exploit that 
     vulnerability the last time. There is no guarantee that he--
     or his ilk--will not do so in the future. In fact, there is 
     every reason to believe one or more of them will, with 
     devastating consequences for American interests and allies.


                            The Bottom Line

       The only way to deal with the present crisis is to mobilize 
     and deploy significant ground forces to the Persian Gulf at 
     once. Saddam is believed to be moving some 26,000 troops 
     toward Kuwait. At least one-third that number should be 
     dispatched immediately to the Gulf. Such forces are critical 
     to restoring deterrence and giving the United States the 
     wherewithal to defeat Saddam's forces should it be necessary 
     to do so once again.
       Under no circumstances should the United States try to 
     ``buy off'' Saddam--with or without Jimmy Carter's meddling. 
     This policy in North Korea, China, Bosnia and Haiti has 
     already contributed to the present crisis. It will be 
     infinitely worse if the U.S. now agrees, in the face of 
     Saddam's latest blackmail, to lift sanctions, allowing oil 
     sales, imports of sensitive technology, etc. The mind reels 
     at what further outrages such a policy would inspire in the 
     Persian Gulf and beyond.


                               Footnotes

     \1\For more on the Radical Entente, see the Center for 
     Security Policy's Decision Briefs: Will the Senate Give 
     Russia A Subsidy To Serve As the Radical Entente's `Fed-Ex' 
     Service? (No. 93-D 79, 15 September 1994) and A Good Week for 
     the `Radical Entente': Outlaw Nations Likely Emboldened By 
     Ineffectual Western Responses (No. 93-D 28, 2 April 1994).
     \2\In this regard, see the Center for Security Policy's 
     recommendations contained in such products as: `Wake-Up 
     Calls' on Terrorism: Saddam's Plot, Clinton's Response Reveal 
     Shape of Things To Come (No. 93-D 54, 28 June 1993); 
     Clinton's New Mideast `Containment' Strategy: Start By 
     Punishing Saddam for Trying To Kill George Bush (No. 93-D 41, 
     21 May 1993); Saddam's `Cheating,' Who's `Retreating'? End of 
     His Tyranny is Only Hope for Compliance (No. 92-D 83, 27 July 
     1992); Wanted: Saddam Hussein, Dead or Alive (No. 91-P 49, 12 
     June 1991); On To Baghdad! Liberate Iraq (No. 91-P 16, 27 
     February 1991) and Don't Let Saddam Get Away With Murder (No. 
     91-P 11, 14 February 1991).
     \3\See for example an article entitled, ``CIA: Iraq Dodges 
     U.N. Monitoring,'' in today's Washington Times.

                          ____________________