[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S10279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               UNITED STATES MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this morning we learned that Iraq fired a 
surface-to-air missile at American F-16's patrolling the no-fly zone 
over what has now become an imaginary Kurdish safe haven in northern 
Iraq. This latest challenge to the safety of American pilots and to the 
credibility of American security guarantees in the Persian Gulf region 
comes on the heels of Saddam Hussein's rejection of United States 
warnings not to repair his air defense systems damaged by our cruise 
missile strikes in southern Iraq.
  The necessity of further United States military action against Iraq 
is now obvious. And by his actions, Saddam Hussein has made the 
strongest argument for a disproportionate U.S. response of considerably 
greater military significance than our military action last week.
  Furthermore, Saddam's aggressive challenges to the United States, and 
his success in reasserting his control in northern Iraq as his troops 
and the troops of his new Kurdish allies, the KDP, completed their 
conquest of the region on Monday, reveal the critical importance of 
curbing the Clinton administration's tendencies to rhetorical 
inconsistency in defining its objectives, disingenuous explanations of 
its policy choices, and exaggerated claims of success.
  Our strikes last week were in response to Iraq's conquest, in 
alliance with the KDP, of the Kurdish city of Irbil. But by striking 
targets in the south, the administration chose not a disproportionate 
response to Iraqi aggression, but a minimal response that was 
disconnected from the offense it was ostensibly intended to punish. As 
one administration official put it: ``* * * We know that we did the 
right thing in terms of stopping Saddam Hussein in whatever thoughts he 
might about moving south and in letting him know that when he abuses 
his people or threatens the region, that we will be there. * * * we 
really whacked him.''
  Evident in that statement are the three harmful administration 
tendencies cited above. Our stated purpose to stop Saddam's abuse of 
his people was quickly overridden by, in the words of another 
administration official, the judgment that ``we should not be involved 
in the civil war in the north.'' And while administration officials at 
first suggested that our strikes in southern Iraq would affect Iraq's 
action in the north, they now emphasize that the strikes were intended 
only to serve our strategic interest in restricting Saddam's ability to 
threaten his neighbors from the south.
  It is clear now that the erosion of coalition unity, evident in 
Turkey and Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow United States warplanes to 
undertake offensive operations from bases in those countries, had a far 
more important influence on our choice of targets and the level of 
force used than administration officials have admitted.
  Most importantly, the President's claims that our strikes were 
successful in achieving their objectives are belied by the events of 
this week. By what measurement can we assert that Saddam has been 
persuaded to treat his people humanely; that he has been compelled to 
abide by U.N. resolutions and the terms of the cease-fire agreement; 
that the containment of Iraq has been further advanced; and that the 
United States and our allies are strategically better off since we 
fired 44 cruise missiles at Iraqi air defense systems in the south?
  Since those strikes, Saddam's Kurdish allies have achieved a complete 
victory in the north, and Saddam has regained control of an area from 
which he has been excluded for several years. Kurdish refugees are 
again flooding across the border. Saddam, in utter contempt for U.S. 
warnings, has begun repairing the radar sites we struck last week. He, 
at least temporarily, split the Desert Storm coalition. And in 
violation of the cease-fire agreement and U.N. Security Council 
resolutions, he has fired missiles at U.S. planes patrolling an 
internationally established no-fly zone. As successes go, this one 
leaves much to be desired.
  Clearly, Iraq's attempted downing of American planes requires a 
military response from us. I have little doubt that the President will 
order a response. Given that Iraq's action represents a challenge not 
just to the United States, but to the international coalition 
responsible for enforcing the no-fly zone, I would expect that we will 
have greater cooperation from our allies than we experienced last week. 
Thus our ability to take the disproportionate, truly punishing action 
which is clearly called for under the circumstances should not be 
limited by the consequences of our failure to maintain coalition unity.
  Decisions about the dimensions of our response are, of course, the 
President's to make. I pray that he will choose wisely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                          ____________________