[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 8 (Monday, February 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S473-S474]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, a decision to send our military personnel 
into combat is the most serious policymakers can make. We do not or 
should not cavalierly discuss military options without losing sight of 
the human dimension that people, whether our own uniformed personnel or 
innocent civilians in the country against which we take action, will 
die.
  We were correct to strike Libya in 1986, although we mourned the loss 
of lives of innocent people whose sole crime was to live in a 
dictatorship that provoked us to action. We were correct to liberate 
Grenada and Panama, despite the loss of life that accompanied those 
conflicts. And we were correct to conduct overwhelming airstrikes 
against Iraq in order to evict it from Kuwait, but we regret the deaths 
of civilians cynically placed in harm's way by that country's regime. 
And we have been correct in the past to launch punitive missile strikes 
against Iraq in response to its violation of the U.N. resolutions.
  We now stand on the precipice of yet another military confrontation 
with Saddam Hussein and the military security forces that protect him. 
Iraq has repeatedly, over the span of 7 years, defied U.N. resolutions 
and agreements, negotiated in exchange for the termination of the 
Persian Gulf war. The demands made of Iraq are simple and reasonable 
and, if complied with in good faith, would not have unduly subjected it 
to violations of its sovereignty. Iraq was to destroy its existing 
stockpiles of banned weapons of mass destruction and its capability to 
reconstitute the scientific and industrial infrastructure for their 
development. It was to repatriate Kuwaiti prisoners after Iraq's brutal 
invasion and occupation of its smaller neighbor; and it was to 
compensate the victims of its aggression.
  Mr. President, it has not done any of these things. Instead, it has 
demonstrated for 7 straight years its contempt for the United Nations, 
for the agreements it has signed, and for the most simple norms of 
civilized behavior.
  Saddam Hussein has repeatedly pushed the international community to 
the brink and then pulled back just enough to head off military 
action. He has eluded the scale of punitive measures warranted by 
calculating the point at which his actions would result in serious 
retaliatory measures by the United States. He has gotten away with this 
because in those few instances when military action was taken against 
him, it was ineffectual. Nowhere was this more evident than the 
September 1996 cruise missile strikes against Iraqi targets following 
the most egregious violation to date: the large-scale military 
incursion into Kurdish territory and subsequent execution of anti-
Saddam activists working with the United States. At that time, the 
forces involved in the incursion on what was supposed to be protected 
territory should have been directly and forcefully attacked.

  The United Nations Special Commission tasked with verifying Iraqi's 
compliance with U.N. resolutions has been systematically stymied at 
every point. Saddam Hussein has clearly placed a higher priority on 
continuing to develop the means to threaten his neighbors than on the 
welfare of children the fate of which Baghdad purports to decry. Iraq 
has received every conceivable opportunity to comply with legitimate 
and lawful demands and to join the community of nations as a member in 
good standing, and has spurned those opportunities.
  The nature of the regime of Saddam Hussein is impervious to any 
peaceful effort at resolution of the ongoing conflict. There is every 
reason to believe that Iraq continues to possess chemical and 
biological weapons and the means to deliver them. There is no 
indication that it aspires to live in peace with its neighbors; on the 
contrary, I have no doubt that if the opportunity arose, it would again 
attempt to retake Kuwait. It certainly aspires to participate in the 
destruction of Israel.
  The time for talk may be over. The chairman of the U.N. Special 
Commission has thrown up his hands in dismay. The approaching option is 
the large-scale and protracted use of military force. Diplomacy, 
certainly the optimal approach, has failed thus far. Withdrawing our 
forces and lifting the sanctions would enable Iraq to fully rearm and 
openly threaten to destabilize the region, brandishing the very banned 
weapons at issue. Not only should sanctions not be lifted, they should 
in fact be tightened. Existing no-fly zones should continue to be 
enforced and expanded, perhaps to include no-drive zones targeted 
against Republican Guard armored units.
  The only viable military option is to inflict serious damage on the 
Iraqi Republican Guard and destroy the compounds and ``palaces'' Saddam 
has sought to protect. Ineffectual cruise missile and air strikes such 
as characterized past punitive actions, particularly in 1996 when 27 
cruise missiles were launched against largely insignificant targets, 
will once again prove counterproductive. Domestic communications links 
should be targeted as well as military ones, in order to sever Saddam's 
ability to communicate to the Iraqi people. The expansion of our own 
broadcasting into Iraq aimed at influencing public opinion there should 
have been a higher priority all along.
  And we should be prepared to act alone if necessary. While Britain 
has stood by us and prepared to act with us, for which we should be 
grateful, it is disconcerting to witness the paucity of public support 
for enforcing legitimate U.N. resolutions. While some of us were in 
Germany this past weekend, it was gratifying to hear the German 
government come out in support of our efforts, but European support is 
less important right now than attaining the open support of the Middle 
Eastern governments that will play a vital role in dealing with the 
political ramifications within that region of any military actions we 
take against Iraq. In that respect, Saudi Arabia's decision to permit 
only the use of support aircraft from its territory is deeply 
disturbing. I understand Saudi, and all Arab, concern for the welfare 
of the Iraqi populace. And I am aware of the domestic and regional 
implications for the Saudi government of openly supporting air strikes 
against Iraq. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein against Saudi Arabia, 
as well as every other country in the region, however, argues 
forcefully for the government in Riyadh to be more openly supportive of 
our measures and to communicate to their people the simple fact that 
measures against Iraq occur solely because of that country's 
belligerent and unlawful stance.

  The military option, should it be chosen, must be designed to 
accomplish meaningful military objectives. Restraints on targeting 
intended to minimize criticism from other nations, whether friends, 
allies or potential foes, will have the effect of reducing the 
likelihood that objectives will be accomplished. It is clear that the 
United States will be widely criticized by many parties should we 
launch an attack against Iraq. As stated, it is of little comfort that 
some of those governments that criticize us publicly applaud us 
privately, as their populations take their cue from the public posture. 
Iraq has provided every incentive for us to strike, and we must not 
squander the opportunity to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction 
from the region by tailoring military actions to minimize the political 
outcry that will follow. Leadership and responsibility often entail 
unpopular actions, and the prosecution of actions that lead to deaths 
of many is a horrible burden to bear. But bear it we must.
  The key to a long-term resolution of the Iraq problem lies largely in 
one man, or, to be more precise given what is known about his sons, one 
family. The United States should adopt stronger measures aimed at 
undermining the ruling regime through greater support of dissident 
elements both within and outside of Iraq. Saddam's internal security 
apparatus has proven enormously effective at defeating such elements in 
the past, and I am under no

[[Page S474]]

illusions about the scale of the effort required to get the job done. 
It is an effort, however, that must be made. Considerable opposition to 
Saddam and his family exists inside Iraq and, particularly, among 
exiled dissident groups. The Administration should organize a more 
concerted effort at unifying these dissident elements and providing the 
logistical support needed to bring about the collapse of Saddam's 
regime. Financial support toward this end is already at hand in the 
form of Iraqi assets frozen after its invasion of Kuwait. The current 
and future Administrations should budget appropriately for the costs of 
such an operation within the international operations discretionary 
portion of the federal budget--not out of a defense budget already 
suffering the effects of seeing resources diverted to various 
contingency operations.
  I do not adopt this stance lightly. On the contrary, I wish there 
were another way, but I know there is not. I regret very much that 
American personnel may lose their lives in any military operation we 
conduct against Iraq and I mourn the loss of those innocent Iraqis who 
want nothing more than to live in peace. But Saddam Hussein has left us 
no choice.
  Mr. President, it is imperative that this body convey to the 
President the support he needs in this time of domestic political 
crisis to employ the level of force necessary to bring closure to the 
situation with Iraq. For that to happen, though, the President should 
ask Congress for its support, not just welcome it if and when it comes. 
Politics stops at the water's edge, it is often said in discussions of 
foreign policy. We are at the water's edge, and the currents are 
threatening to sweep away U.S. credibility in the very region where we 
can least afford for that to happen. Vital U.S. interests are at stake, 
and it is time to act.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________