[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 120 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9934-S9938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               UNITED STATES RESPONSE TO IRAQI AGGRESSION

  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

[[Page S9935]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. According to the unanimous consent agreement, the final 
issue to be disposed of at approximately 9:30 deals with the resolution 
relating to Iraq. I would like to address that resolution at this time.
  I send it to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 288) regarding the United States 
     response to Iraqi aggression.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on Tuesday, I spoke briefly about my 
views on President Clinton's decision to retaliate against Iraq for its 
unprovoked, unjustified, and brutal attack on the civilian population 
of Irbil, a city in northern Iraq.
  At that time, I also indicated I planned to introduce a resolution 
condemning Saddam Hussein's behavior and expressing the Senate's 
support for the President's actions.
  I must say I never dreamed it would take this long and be this 
difficult to arrive at a simple resolution in support of the actions 
taken earlier this week.
  For several days now, we have been attempting to resolve issues 
relating to language and have been thwarted and frustrated in that 
effort for a lot of reasons, in large measure because many of my 
colleagues on the other side wish not to laud the President or find any 
way with which to praise the President's actions. In fact, for the last 
several hours the issue has been, do we even use the word ``President'' 
in the resolution? There was an adamant feeling on the part of many on 
the other side that we could not use the word ``President,'' and so you 
will not find that word used as a result of the requirements by many of 
my colleagues on the Republican side.
  In fact, the only reference to the President is a reference to the 
Commander in Chief, and I must say that that is suitable to many of us, 
but I do believe that it is a very unfortunate set of circumstances 
that could have caused some partisanship, in fact a great deal of 
partisanship, to enter into these deliberations.
  Let me at the same time applaud the majority leader for his 
willingness to continue to work with me to resolve those outstanding 
questions and to come to some compromise on the language that has now 
been presented to the Senate. His work and his cooperation as well as 
that of some of our colleagues on the other side have brought us to 
this point tonight.
  Let me also thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia, the ranking 
member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn, and the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Carl Levin. Let me also 
thank Senator Pell and many others--Senator Biden, who had a lot to do 
with the wording of this legislation; in addition, Senator McCain, 
Senator Warner, and others who were very helpful in bringing us to this 
point.
  Let me make it very clear that in spite of what I consider to be the 
pettiness involved with whether you use the word ``President'' or not, 
this resolution very clearly and strongly and wholeheartedly supports 
the measures taken by this President in the last 72 hours.
  Last Saturday, in spite of clear warnings from the United States and 
the international community, Iraqi forces commenced their vicious 
attack on the defenseless civilian Kurdish population in and around 
Irbil. Casualties reportedly numbered in the thousands. Reports of 
door-to-door searches resulting in executions were rampant and, 
unfortunately, all too credible.

  In addition to this obvious toll on human life, Saddam's invasion 
also threatens the interests of the United States and its allies in 
this crucial region of the world. The prospect for factional strife has 
been greatly increased while regional stability has been called into 
question, thereby enhancing the risk of a larger scale conflict in the 
region.
  Saddam's aggression is in direct contravention of the United Nations 
Resolution 688 which was enacted in 1991 at the end of the Persian Gulf 
war. At that time the Security Council empowered the United States, 
Britain, and France to protect the Kurdish population from human rights 
abuses by the Iraqi regime through the establishment of a no-fly zone 
over large portions of northern and southern Iraq.
  Saddam's attack on Irbil blatantly violates international norms and 
is by itself sufficient justification for the President's decisions to 
strike four critical Iraqi targets with 44 cruise missiles and to 
expand the no-fly zone northward to the very suburbs of Baghdad.
  Unfortunately, the aggression in Irbil is but the latest in a string 
of ruthless and provocative actions undertaken by Saddam before, 
during, and after the Persian Gulf war.
  Mr. President, I will not outline the entire catalog of violent and 
reprehensible acts undertaken by Saddam and his henchmen since he 
ascended to power in Iraq. Needless to say, the list is as chilling as 
it is long. President Clinton succinctly noted in his statement on 
Tuesday, ``Saddam Hussein's objectives may change but his methods are 
always the same--violence and aggression against the Kurds, against 
ethnic minorities, against Iraq's neighbors.''
  It is for these reasons that I support and our colleagues support the 
President's decision to take action. I am very confident the American 
people feel exactly as we do tonight.
  The President's actions served a twofold purpose. First, they showed 
Saddam that he will pay a price for his latest act of aggression. In 
mounting the largest attack on Iraqi territory in the 5 years since the 
end of the Persian Gulf war, president Clinton has appropriately 
reminded Saddam that violations of international norms will not go 
unpunished.
  Secondly, by destroying air defense assets in central Iraq and 
extending the no-fly zone northward toward Baghdad, the United States 
has greatly reduced the threat Saddam poses to his opponents within 
Iraq and his opponents in adjoining nations.
  By restraining Saddam's bloody hand, the President's decisive action 
has limited the ability of an oppressive regime to disrupt the volatile 
center of a Middle East region that is vital to American foreign policy 
interests. The response was measured, appropriate, and absolutely 
necessary.
  I also want to indicate at this time my strong support for the men 
and women in uniform who are asked repeatedly to go in harm's way to 
protect our national interests. Early damage reports from the latest 
attack on Iraq indicate another mission accomplished without a hitch 
and without a casualty.
  It is noteworthy that despite the end of the cold war, the military 
forces of the United States continue to play a crucial role around the 
world in advancing and protecting our national interests. This 
dedicated group of men and women have been called upon repeatedly since 
the collapse of the Soviet Union and the onset of the post-cold-war 
era. They have never failed the American people or our friends abroad.
  The resolution before us is an extremely crucial matter for all of us 
because our enemies and friends must see that we speak with one voice 
when it comes to our policy for containing and defeating Saddam 
Hussein. As we have learned only too painfully in the past, domestic 
discord on important national security issues only plays into the hands 
of those who seek to undermine our resolve. It is critically important 
to demonstrate national unity when our military forces are in harm's 
way.
  Even in this most intense political season, politics for all 
Americans still ends at the water's edge.
  President Clinton was faced with a broad array of choices when 
deciding how to respond to Saddam's aggression, everything from doing 
nothing to inserting United States ground troops and forcefully 
evicting Iraqi troops from Irbil. Obviously, each end of this spectrum 
constitutes an unacceptable and inappropriate response. Only something 
between the two extremes makes any sense, precisely the course chosen 
by President Clinton.
  This resolution puts the Senate forcefully behind the President's 
measured decision. The President opted both to weaken Iraqi air 
defenses and simultaneously expand the area in which the Iraqi Air 
Force will not be permitted to operate. These actions clearly 
demonstrate the United States

[[Page S9936]]

is prepared to impose real costs on Saddam Hussein for his aggression. 
As noted by Gen. Colin Powell, the President did exactly the right 
thing.
  Of our friends and allies abroad, we ask they stand with the United 
States as we seek to faithfully implement the U.N. resolutions adopted 
at the end of the Persian Gulf war. Saddam's actions demonstrate he 
still represents a direct threat to his people, his neighbors, and the 
security of the entire vitally important region. If the world were to 
look the other way now and allow Saddam to go unpunished, we would 
encourage more blatant and damaging incursions in the future. There 
must be no doubt in Saddam's mind that the international community is 
united in its opposition to such unacceptable behavior.
  Finally, to Saddam Hussein, let us state for the record the position 
of this administration and this Congress, as plainly and as simply as 
we can. Although we may belong to different political parties and have 
opposing views on some issues, we stand united and indivisible on this. 
Iraqi aggression must not go unpunished, now or in the future. We will 
insist on Iraq's compliance with international norms of behavior, 
regardless of the circumstance.
  To this end I have worked with the distinguished majority leader to 
draft a resolution condemning Saddam's behavior and indicating our 
strong support for the U.S. response to this latest incident. With the 
adoption of this resolution by the Senate, there should be no doubt in 
anyone's mind, least of all Saddam Hussein's, that the American people 
are united in their opposition to this conduct. Passage of this 
resolution is one way to demonstrate to our friends and enemies alike, 
our resolve on this crucial issue.
  I ask for its support tonight. I hope we could indicate our support 
unanimously.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just briefly, this Senate Resolution 288 
recognizes that the United States and its allies have vital interests 
in ensuring regional stability in the Persian Gulf. It recognizes that:

       On August 31, 1996, Saddam Hussein, despite warnings from 
     the United States, began an unprovoked, unjustified, and 
     brutal attack on civilian population in and around Irbil in 
     northern Iraq.

  It recognizes:

       the United States responded to Hussein's aggression on 
     September 3, 1996 by destroying some of the Iraqi air defense 
     installations and announcing the expansion of the southern 
     no-fly zone.

  Those are the whereas clauses in the resolution. And the resolved 
says:

       The Senate commends the military actions taken by and the 
     performance of the United States Armed Force under the 
     direction of the Commander-in-Chief, for carrying out this 
     military mission in a highly professional, efficient and 
     effective manner.

  There are those who would have liked for it to have said a lot more. 
There are those who were not comfortable saying anything at this time, 
who have some questions about the policy and what the future holds. But 
I do think it is appropriate that we have a bipartisan resolution on 
this subject matter, that we commend our men and women for the job they 
have done. They have done a wonderful job in the air and on the sea in 
this instance, as in all other instances. And whenever American forces 
are introduced, we do come together and partisanship stops at the 
shoreline, and that is the case here.
  We have been working since Tuesday to craft a resolution that 
condemns what happened there in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein's actions, 
again, and to commend these troops.
  There is no doubt in any Senator's mind that we have 100 percent 
support by the American people and by us in support of our men and 
women who have participated in this military action.
  The United States has led the multinational coalition which defeated 
Hussein's aggression in 1991. When President Clinton came into office, 
he inherited a policy toward Iraq that included a weakened Saddam 
Hussein, a united international coalition, a solid international 
sanctions regime and a united Iraqi opposition.
  There is concern now about the move toward lessening sanctions, 
although I had an opportunity to personally ask the President about the 
sanctions, and he assured me that the sanctions were not being lifted 
and that the Iraqi oil sales were not going to go forward under these 
conditions.
  We are also concerned about our international coalition, what is 
going to be their role in the new no-fly zone in the southern part of 
Iraq.
  So there is work to be done in this area, but I am sure both the 
Congress will be paying attention to that, as will the administration.
  There is unanimous condemnation by the American people and by the 
Senate of the brutal attacks on the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq. 
That is as it should be. While it is a complicated situation, with 
interests by Turkey and interests by Iran and by different factions 
within the Kurds, it still is a situation that we cannot ignore. Any 
leader of a country, however that person obtained that position, that 
will exercise that kind of brutality in his own country or threaten 
military action against its neighbors or, in fact, invade a neighbor 
must be consistently watched and very serious and strong actions taken 
against them.
  I want to also say I am concerned--and I discussed this with the 
Democratic leader--about the lack of prior consultation with the 
Congress about this action. The War Powers Act is very clear about the 
need for notification, consultation and also a report on what happened. 
It did not happen in this instance, and I don't believe it happened on 
either side of the aisle. That is unacceptable. Perhaps there were 
reasons for it, but I have expressed my concern to the administration, 
to the NSC, and I believe that we will have more consultation and 
notification in the future. We must not have the commitment of military 
power without even a word of consultation with the Congress. We have to 
continue to insist on that.
  Our resolution is a modest step tonight. Many of our Members would 
like it to have been much more. I think it is fair. It has been worked 
out in a bipartisan way. I think it is time we stepped up to this 
issue, we have this resolution and we move on. So I appreciate the 
cooperation we did have.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support the resolution on 
Iraq. This resolution states the Senate stands with our troops, and our 
President, as they respond to Saddam Hussein's brutality.
  The President was right to act to contain Saddam Hussein's 
aggression. Saddam Hussein's actions threaten American interests and 
peace in the Middle East--as well as the safety of his own people. He 
must be taught that his reckless acts have consequences. He must pay 
the price for his brutal and immoral actions.
  The U.S. response is swift, specific and limited. The President 
responded swiftly and strategically after Iraq seized the city of Irbil 
in the Kurdish safe haven. Our objectives are clear and limited: to 
force Saddam Hussein to pay a price for his brutality and to make it 
safer for our pilots to patrol the no-fly zones in Iraq by destroying 
Iraqi air defense systems. To achieve these objectives, only specific 
military sites are targeted.
  We have already paid a great price to contain Saddam Hussein in 
Operation Desert Storm. If we ignore Saddam Hussein's latest 
aggression, he will only be emboldened to take further reckless actions 
that threaten our national interests--and the lives of his own people.
  Mr. President, my thoughts and gratitude are with our brave troops. 
They are once again called upon to stand sentry for those who would 
otherwise stand alone. The men and women of our Armed Forces have 
performed their mission with great skill and courage. I pray for their 
safe and swift return.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last weekend Saddam Hussein sought to test 
the international community's tolerance and resolve yet again. Some 
30,000 Iraqi soldiers, led by the elite Republican Guards, attacked and 
captured the Kurdish-controlled city of Irbil in northern Iraq. Saddam 
undertook this action despite warnings from the United States and other 
members of the international community and in defiance of our 
collective commitment, born out of the Persian Gulf war, to protect the 
Kurds.
  None of us knows why Saddam decided to test us now. But if the 
history of the last six years has taught us anything, it is that Saddam 
Hussein does

[[Page S9937]]

not understand diplomacy, he only understands power, and when he 
brandishes power in a manner that threatens our interests or violates 
internationally accepted standards of behavior, we must be prepared to 
respond--and with force, if necessary.
  President Clinton's response to Saddam's latest challenge was the 
right one--decisive, measured, and carefully calculated to take the 
strategic advantage away from Saddam. By expanding the southern no-fly 
zone to the 33d parallel, we have denied him the ability to use two key 
military air bases and to control Iraqi airspace from the Kuwaiti 
border to the southern outskirts of Baghdad. This significantly reduces 
his capacity to launch offensive operations against Iraq's neighbors 
and the Persian Gulf oil fields. By attacking his air defense and 
command and control systems we have increased our capacity to patrol 
the no-fly zone and reduced the potential treat to our pilots and those 
of our British and French allies.
  Saddam Hussein has tried to explain away this latest aggressive move 
by contending that his forces entered Irbil at the request of the 
Kurdistan Democratic Party [KDP], one of the two warring factions in 
northern Iraq. It is hard to understand why any Kurdish faction would 
willingly ally with Saddam, given the many years in which his forces 
have repressed, tortured and abused the human rights of the Kurdish 
people. However, if the KDP did request Iraqi intervention, that 
request does not justify the use of force against Kurdish civilians in 
Irbil. The international community has made it clear since April 1991, 
when the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 688, that it 
would not tolerate the repression of the Kurds and other Iraqi 
civilians. That is why the United Nations established the no-fly zone 
in northern Iraq. The Iraqi attack on Irbil, and the continued threat 
posed by Iraqi forces positioned to attack again in support of the KDP, 
contravenes the letter and the spirit of this resolution.

  For months the United States has led a diplomatic effort to try to 
mediate the conflict between two warring Kurdish factions, the 
Kurdistan Democratic Party led by Massoud Barzani and the Patriotic 
Union of Kurdistan [PUK] led by Jalal Talabani. There is no doubt that 
the PUK's flirtation with Iran earlier this year and the raw power 
politics played by these groups opened the door for Saddam Hussein. 
Hundreds of innocent Kurdish civilians have died, and others could die 
as long as Saddam has de facto control over Irbil and Iraqi forces 
remain poised to attack other PUK-controlled areas.
  The United States has a moral interest in preventing the abuse of the 
Kurdish people, but our strategic interests go beyond this. We have 
strategic interests in denying Saddam the capability to take action 
against Kuwait and other states in the region or to threaten the 
world's oil supply. We also have a strategic interest in supporting the 
Iraqi opposition as a way to counter Iran's growing influence and 
limiting its ability to control a post-Saddam Iraq. That is why we did 
not--and should not--side with either of the Kurdish factions.
  The U.S. military response was deliberately designed to accomplish 
two objectives: first, to make Saddam Hussein pay a steep price for his 
aggressive moves against Kurdish civilians in Irbil, and second, to 
weaken his capacity to undertake offensive action in the region. Time 
and again in the last six years, Saddam has tried to test the 
international community's commitment to peace and stability in the 
region. Each and every time he has met a forceful response.
  Iraq's August 1990 attack on Kuwait resulted in defeat for Iraqi 
forces at the hands of a U.S.-led coalition. Suppression of the Kurdish 
revolt in northern Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf war led to the 
establishment of the northern no-fly zone by the international 
community. Iraqi threats against United States and allied planes 
enforcing the no-fly zone in January 1993 led to missile strikes 
against Iraq's southern air defense systems. Six months later President 
Clinton ordered United States forces to strike at an Iraqi intelligence 
facility when he learned of an Iraqi plot to assassinate former 
President Bush. In October 1994, the United States and its allies sent 
forces to the region as Iraqi troops began to move south toward Kuwait. 
We did the same thing the following fall when Iraqi troops appeared to 
be moving south again.

  The United States, under President Bush and then President Clinton, 
led these earlier efforts to contain Saddam. Whereas some of our allies 
in the region are constrained from acting on this occasion, we are not. 
Our interests, and the long-term interests of peace and stability in 
the region, dictate that we respond to this latest test of wills with 
Saddam.
  The Iraqi attack on Irbil has had serious ramifications for the 
people of Iraq. It has resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians. It 
has set back the possibility of resolving differences and reaching a 
viable political settlement between the Kurdish factions. It has forced 
the United Nations Secretary General to suspend implementation of U.N. 
Security Council Resolution 986, which provides for the sale of some 
Iraqi oil to generate funds to buy food and medicine for the Iraqi 
people. Irbil is one of the key distribution centers for this 
humanitarian assistance. Needless to say that plan cannot go forward in 
the shadow of Iraqi forces.
  President Clinton made it clear that we intend to judge Saddam 
Hussein by his actions, not his words. Saddam has said that Iraq will 
not respect the expanded no fly zone and yesterday, Iraqi radar locked 
on a United States plane enforcing the zone. What this means is 
unclear. Clearly the rational response on Saddam's part would be to 
refrain from any action that will escalate this crisis. I know that all 
of us hope that rationality will prevail.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join the majority leader today in 
expressing the Senate's support for the accomplishments by the men and 
women of the Armed Forces who planned and executed the recent air 
strikes against Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi military. At times of 
international crisis, it is essential that our troops in the field--
those who are assuming high personal risks--know that they have the 
support of Congress and the American people. Having myself served in, 
and later with our military, as Secretary of Navy, I know the vital 
need for this support for our troops and their families.
  Since Saddam Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait in August 1990, I have 
been a consistent supporter of U.S. military, using force if justified, 
to stop Iraqi aggression throughout that region. It is clearly in the 
national security interests, and the economic interests, of the United 
States--and indeed the international community--to ensure that the 
Government and military of Iraq do not threaten the stability of a 
region which contains an estimated 70 percent of the world's known oil 
reserves. That is why the United States, under the leadership of 
President Bush, was able to put together the most significant military 
coalition since World war II to force Iraqi invaders out of Kuwait, 
restore Kuwait sovereignty, impose severe restrictions and prohibitions 
on Saddam Hussein's military capability and aggressive behavior, and 
restore a measure of stability to this ever troubled region.
  I was privileged to work with Senator Dole in drafting the 
legislation and managing the floor debate resulting in Senate approval 
of the resolution which authorized President Bush to employ U.S. Armed 
Forces--using force--in the Gulf War. It is hard to image today--when a 
consensus generally exists in this country for taking military action 
against Iraqui agression--that in 1991, with 500,000 U.S. troops in the 
Gulf ready to use force that the Senate supported the authority for the 
President to use force by a mere 5 votes. Thankfully, after Desert 
Storm was launched, the Congress, the nation quickly rallied behind our 
troops. The missions, as set out in U.N. resolutions, were successfully 
accomplished.
  Today, the crisis in Iraq is not simply about a tragic civil war 
between factions of the Kurds. It is about maintaining the regional 
security balance that our troops fought--and died--for in 1991. Almost 
6 years after the gulf war, the international community is still 
fighting to secure Saddam's compliance with the agreements demanded 
from him and his government at the end of the war. Yet today, Saddam 
continues to defy U.N. weapons inspectors;

[[Page S9938]]

refuses to account for Kuwaitis missing since the war; refuses to 
return Kuwaiti property seized during the Iraqi occupation; and 
continues to repress Iraqi citizens. Such actions must not be 
tolerated.
  The United States has already made a substantial investment, in the 
Sacrifices, casualties of our troops and their families, to contain 
Saddam's aggression. During Desert Storm, almost 150 U.S. military 
personnel were killed, and over 460 were wounded. In addition, the 
American taxpayer invested heavily in the U.S. major military effort, 
and has continued to pay--an average of at least a half billion dollars 
a year since 1991--to contain Saddam Hussein.
  That investment must be preserved, so a U.S. response to Saddam's 
latest transgression had to be made. The timeliness, the magnitude, and 
the process by which the Presidential decisions were made must be fully 
reviewed. But for now, a ``well done'' to the U.S. military.
  I commend the majority leader, Senators Thurmond and McCain for their 
leadership on this resolution.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's movement into northern 
Iraq was yet another direct threat to U.S. national interest: to 
maintain security and stability in the Middle East. American cruise 
missiles have struck various Iraqi military installations with the 
purpose of deterring Iraq from further violence against the Kurds and 
to take out air-defense systems that posed a danger to our air patrols.
  I support the President as our Commander in Chief and his decision to 
attack Saddam Hussein's military installations to provide greater 
protection for our personnel enforcing the current and expanded no-fly 
zone. I stand 100 percent behind the brave men and women in our Armed 
Forces. Therefore, I support the resolution we are voting on this 
evening which condemns Saddam Hussein's actions and expresses support 
for our troops and the President's efforts to curb further actions by 
Iraq. It is my understanding that after intelligence reports disclosed 
the Iraqi military buildup, clear warnings were sent that he should not 
use any military force--warnings that were not heeded.
  Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's actions and our response didn't come 
out of the blue. They are an extension of ongoing efforts to enforce 
the restraints placed on Iraq at the end of the Gulf war. Therefore, 
while the use of force should always be a last resort tool of foreign 
policy, the reckless and aggressive pattern of actions Hussein has 
carried out, required the only warning he would respond to: force.
  While we can understand these recent events, the future of this 
situation remains a concern for us all. U.S. interests in the region 
have not changed. In addition, the various conflicts among neighboring 
nations and the division within the Kurdish people, further complicates 
our ability to stabilize the situation. It is critical and in our 
national interest that the administration work with our allies, 
especially those in the region, to bring this incident to a peaceful 
conclusion.
  Finally, while the cold war has come to an end, it is clear that we 
continue to live in an unstable world where our national security 
interests will be tested. We must continue to fully fund our Armed 
Forces so they remain strong. When we ask American men and women to put 
their lives on the line for our country, they better have the best 
equipment and training possible.
  Mr. President, there is no doubt that we have strong national 
security interests in this very volatile and unstable region of the 
world. Any further hostility by Saddam Hussein's forces against our 
personnel, or in violation of Operation Provide Comfort or the other 
restraints established by the international community must be met with 
a swift and decisive response from the United States.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 2 days ago the President ordered a forceful 
response to Iraq's aggression against its own Kurdish minority.
  The question before us is whether the Senate supports the action 
taken by our President.
  Some have expressed concerns that go beyond the scope of that 
question. They have raised points that could be the matter of legitmate 
debate--but that debate should be reserved for another day.
  We are not debating the history of American diplomacy with respect to 
Iraq. We are not debating the future of American security policy in the 
Persian Gulf. We are simply being asked to state whether or not we 
support the actions initiated by the Commander in Chief; Whether we 
support the troops fulfilling his orders; and, whether we condemn 
Saddam Hussein's aggressive actions.
  These are weighty matters in and of themselves. We should not cloud 
the debate by injecting extraneous issues.
  I intend to support the resolution before us because I believe that 
the forceful response ordered by the President was both necessary and 
appropriate. Saddam Hussein has demonstrated repeatedly that he only 
understands the language of force.
  He was warned explicitly by the United States when evidence mounted 
of a threatening Iraqi military mobilization. He chose to ignore those 
warnings and enter an area that has been the site of past Iraqi 
transgressions. His actions violated universal human rights norms as 
well as U.N. Security Council Resolution 688, which demanded that he 
cease his oppression of the Kurds.
  Had this aggression gone unanswered, it would have strengthened his 
position internally and emboldened him to strike elsewhere. Thankfully, 
it did not go unanswered.
  President Clinton's decisive action sent a strong signal that the 
United States will not condone Iraqi military adventurism. It sent the 
message that there is a price to pay for aggression. It served to 
protect vital interests in the Persian Gulf by reassuring key allies of 
America's commitment to regional stability. And by extending the 
Southern no-fly-zone, the President has constrained Saddam Hussein's 
ability to make greater mischief.
  Upholding these interests transcends the concerns that I and many of 
my colleagues have over becoming enmeshed in the internecine warfare 
between Kurdish factions. The saga of the Kurds is a long tale of 
struggle, betrayal, and oppression. It is one that is further 
complicated by a regional dynamic involving Iran, Iraq, Syria, and 
Turkey. The Kurdish question does not lend itself to an easy solution.
  However, we should not allow the complexities of Kurdistan to cause 
us to lose sight of our broader objectives. The President's action is 
not about involving the United States in Kurdish intrigue. It is about 
containing a dangerous tyrant who is a continuing threat to 
international peace and security. It is about preserving stability in a 
region vital to American national security. In short, it is about 
protecting American interests.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in standing with the President as he 
confronts a ruthless dictator.

                          ____________________