[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 121 (Friday, September 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S10016]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               EXPLANATION OF VOTE--SENATE RESOLUTION 288

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last evening my vote was the only negative 
vote on the resolution relating to the President's military 
intervention earlier this week in Iraq. As there was little if any time 
last night to explain the reason for that vote, I intend to do it at 
this time.
  It is the conventional wisdom, led perhaps by the President of the 
United States, that George Bush severely erred in not completing the 
war in the gulf against Iraq by the total defeat of its armed forces 
and the replacement of the Saddam Hussein government. Because I did not 
make such a criticism at the time, I do not join in that criticism now 
and regard it as essentially irrelevant to the activities of this week.
  President Clinton, when he took that office, inherited the situation 
as it existed then, when that was no longer a real possibility. Since 
taking office, however, President Clinton's policies have caused the 
deterioration, if not the entire unraveling, of the coalition that was 
put together against Iraq at the time of the war in the gulf. Most 
particularly, his administration's indifference to the peculiar burdens 
imposed upon our ally, Turkey, and the particular problems and 
challenges that it faces, have caused us to be in a position in which 
we have been unable to use our bases in that country for any kind of 
response to Iraq. In fact, the coalition has unraveled to such an 
extent that we were not permitted to use the bases of any of our allies 
other than the United Kingdom in that response.
  Earlier this summer we totally and completely ignored an incursion by 
Iranian forces, aimed to support its Kurdish partisans, into Iraq, 
across an international border. Earlier this summer we completely 
ignored Iraq's defiance of a U.N. search for prohibited weapons, both 
chemical and nuclear in nature.
  Nevertheless, we did respond in a military fashion to a contest 
between Iraqi-backed Kurds and Iranian-backed Kurds earlier this week, 
and we responded, Mr. President, in a totally inappropriate fashion.
  It seems to this Senator that at the time of the recent Iraqi 
incursion in support of its own faction in Kurdistan, we had 
essentially two choices: We could have made the choice that we have no 
dog in that fight, that there was no favorite in a contest between a 
group backed by Iran and a group backed by Iraq. On the other hand, we 
could have responded militarily by showing that aggression does not 
pay. Under those circumstances, however, the only appropriate military 
response would be one which would exact a price substantially greater 
than the hoped-for goals of the aggression itself on the part of Iraq.
  We did neither. We responded to this fight among Kurdish partisans in 
a way that could not possibly help the victims of that Iraqi 
aggression. In fact, we clearly stated that we were not attempting to 
reverse what Saddam Hussein was doing in the northern part of his own 
country.
  The net result is this: The net result is that Iraq has regained 
control over much of Iraqi Kurdistan. It has slaughtered its rebels, 
many of whom were under our implicit protection and have been abandoned 
by us. It has shown the United States to be a paper tiger. And what 
cost has it paid, Mr. President? A handful of radar sites.
  We have been abandoned by all of our allies in the Middle East, none 
of whom was willing to publicly support our military response. We have 
been repudiated by France with respect to our new no-flight zone. Our 
President has now terminated the military adventure and has proclaimed 
victory.
  Mr. President, a few more victories like this and we will be 
announcing a no-flight zone over Riyadh.
  The best analogy I can think of is this one: It is as if the Mayor of 
the District of Columbia was warned of an incipient drug war in some 
part of this city and expressed severe warnings against any violence in 
connection with that drug war. Faced with great violence and a number 
of murders, the Mayor then imposed $100 fines on each one of the 
murderers and announced that the drug war was over and that the streets 
of Washington, DC, were safe. That, in effect, has been what our 
response was.
  Mr. President, the United States has been defeated and humiliated. We 
have added to the instability of the Middle East and have whetted 
Saddam Hussein's appetite for further adventures.
  No consultation, no advance notification was given to any Member of 
Congress in connection with this adventure. Under the circumstances, 
Mr. President, I do not believe that any resolution of support, even 
one so cautious, so reluctant, so absent in praise as the one passing 
last night was warranted.
  I believe that within a short period of time, a majority of my 
colleagues will wish that they had voted the way in which I voted last 
night. It was an inappropriate resolution, an inappropriate response to 
an inappropriate action on the part of the President of the United 
States.

                          ____________________