[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 126 (Friday, September 13, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10538-S10539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       THE RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAQ

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, a week ago, I was the only Member of this 
body to vote against a mild resolution of support for our military 
operations in Iraq last week. I did so, Mr. President, because it 
seemed to me that our response fell between two more appropriate 
responses and, as a consequence, was totally ineffective and 
inappropriate.
  Mr. President, I felt last week--and I continue to feel the same way 
today--that we could have determined that in a civil conflict between 
two groups of fighting Kurds, one backed by Iraq and the other by Iran, 
that we had no interest, simply that we had no dog in that fight.
  On the other hand, by reason of the protection that we have provided 
for Kurds, however uncivil in their conduct to one another, we could 
also have responded militarily. Almost without exception, however, Mr. 
President, thoughtful academics, military scholars, and national 
security experts have felt that the United States should not use its 
Armed Forces in combat in response to a challenge from another nation 
without doing so disproportionately.
  What does that mean, Mr. President? It means that we should make 
absolutely certain when we use our Armed Forces that the cost exacted 
of an aggressor, of an enemy, is considerably greater, measurably 
greater, than the gains sought by that aggressor. If we don't use it 
with that philosophy, we almost certainly will be disappointed in the 
results of the use of our armed services and, of course, with respect 
to our national prestige.
  I was convinced, Mr. President, that what we did last week was 5 
cents worth of damage in response to a dollar's worth of gain on the 
part of Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi forces.
  We launched 44 cruise missiles against Iraq last week in response to 
military adventures on the part of Iraq in a northern protected zone in 
Kurdistan. The act, as I have said, came in the midst of a civil war 
between two Kurdish factions, one backed by Iran and one by Iraq. We 
responded not only inadequately, but we responded in the south part of 
Iraq, while the fighting and the brutality was occurring in the north. 
The result, according to the administration, was a U.S. victory. As one 
administration official described it, ``We really whacked him.'' Now, a 
little more than a week later, the reality is considerably different.
  Saddam Hussein has regained control over the northern part of his 
country. After many years of oppression of its people, whom he has 
bitterly oppressed, thousands of whom he has killed, he is continuing 
to fire at U.S. warplanes in the south. The administration is in the 
midst of a review of its policy. Under most circumstances, Mr. 
President, when you are victorious, when you really whack them, it is 
the other guy who changes what he is doing--not us.

[[Page S10539]]

  But this is precisely the flaw in the administration's policy; rather 
than respond to Iraq's military adventure in a manner that ensures that 
any such adventure costs far more than it is worth, we offered Band Aid 
solutions. The result has been less than glowing. Almost certainly at 
this point a reaction which will cost Iraq more than it has gained will 
require a greater investment and a greater risk than the investment and 
the risk which we engaged in a week ago.
  Let us reflect for just a moment on what last week's military 
response achieved. Is Saddam Hussein treating his people better? Has he 
been compelled to abide by a U.N. cease-fire? Has Iraq been contained? 
Is the United States better off now than it was before the military 
action? Do we have solid support from the allies and the anti-Iraq 
coalition? The answer to each one of these questions is clearly no.
  The coalition, masterfully constructed during the gulf war by 
President Bush, is frayed, if not defunct. Saddam Hussein is brazenly 
flaunting both U.S. and U.N. warnings and is scurrying to rebuild the 
very sites we destroyed last week and told him not to rebuild. In the 
last 2 or 3 days he has fired missiles at the aircraft patrolling the 
no-fly zone.
  My friend, the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, said night 
before last that ``decisions about the dimensions of our response are, 
of course, the President's to make.''
  Yet, the confusion continues. The day before yesterday the Secretary 
of Defense said that our response would be ``disproportionate.'' 
Yesterday the Department of Defense says that the response will be 
``measured.'' Perhaps today we will have action that is 
``disproportionately measured.''
  In any event, Mr. President, it seems to me that it is vitally 
important, first, that the President consult with our allies in the 
Mideast in the coalition--something that he did not do earlier--second, 
that he follow the War Powers Act and consult with the Congress. 
Whether he believes the War Powers Act to be constitutional or not, he 
would be extremely wise to consult with the representatives of the 
people of the United States before such an action rather than simply to 
ask for ratification after that action.
  We are worse off than we were a week ago, Mr. President. We face very 
serious dilemmas. We are almost without bases from which to mount any 
military attack. The President is simply going to have to pay much more 
attention to the issue than he has in the past and build a much broader 
coalition if we are not to lose everything that we gained at such high 
cost during the gulf war.

                          ____________________