[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 9 (Tuesday, February 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S543-S546]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CURRENT SITUATION IN IRAQ

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about 
United States policy with regard to Iraq. Through the national and 
international news media and in consultations with members of Congress, 
we have been told time and again in the past several weeks that the 
United States is on the brink of waging a limited but significant 
military strike against Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
  At the same time, Administration officials and President Clinton have 
also repeatedly stated they are hopeful for a diplomatic solution.
  It would appear, however, that Saddam Hussein despite almost frantic 
revolving-door diplomatic efforts from Russia, China, France, Turkey 
and others, will not agree to the resumption of full and open U.N. 
inspections. So, we have a standoff.
  Mr. President, in regard to this latest crisis in the Gulf, I commend 
to the attention of my colleagues the remarks made yesterday by the 
distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel. His remarks are both 
thoughtful and thought provoking and they come from a man who is a 
veteran with a most distinguished record.

  Senator Hagel said this:
       This dilemma must be approached from the framework of both 
     our short-term and long-term foreign policy objectives. We 
     cannot allow Saddam Hussein to stampede us into precipitous 
     action.
       What chain of events will we unleash with any action we 
     take? What is the Administration's long-term objective in 
     Iraq? Do we have one? Or, are we crafting a long term policy 
     to justify short-term actions?

  Senator Hagel went on to say he was disturbed about reports over the 
weekend quoting high ranking Administration officials and Congressional 
leaders saying such things as:

[[Page S544]]

  ``We may have to face the reality that we will not get U.N. 
inspection teams back into Iraq;
  ``Any military action would be to just slow Saddam Hussein down;
  ``We have to keep going back to bomb him again;
  ``Our allies support of us in Iraq may be tied to our future 
commitment to NATO'' and other such disconcerting remarks.
  Senator Hagel concluded by saying we owe it to our country and the 
men and women in uniform who will be called upon to fight a war to do 
better than just bomb Saddam Hussein.
  He said:

       That is not good enough. There is something surreal about 
     all of the war talk, and war preparation played out in this 
     `matter of fact' tone on international TV with every talk 
     show host panelist presenting his or her theories and options 
     when most of them have never been to war, prepared for war or 
     understand the first thing about the horrors of war.
       There are no good options. Saddam Hussein has and is intent 
     on building the most vile weapons in the history of man, 
     weapons outlawed by nearly every country in the world. He 
     cannot go unchallenged.
       But, the American people and the Congress must have a more 
     solid basis for our support. Whatever action is taken, it 
     must meet a clear and immediate objective. We cannot continue 
     to ricochet from crisis to crisis and call that foreign 
     policy.

  Mr. President, that is straight talk and I commend Senator Hagel for 
his candor and forthrightness.
  And, Senator Hagel is right. The policy discussions regarding Iraq 
have indeed been unique, if not bizarre. We have seen more policy 
declarations, more redefined policy declarations, and more mixed 
signals than a coach signaling his quarterback with the time clock 
running out. That may well be part of diplomatic carrot and stick 
efforts but it certainly does not improve public understanding or 
provide confidence for a well defined and successful military mission.

  The latest comments by Administration officials indicate the attack 
is now only weeks away although there has been considerable speculation 
that the U.S. would not attack while the Winter Olympics are being 
held. The United States is a signatory to a U.N. resolution that calls 
on all countries to honor a cease fire during the Olympic Games. 
International Olympic Games President, Juan Antonio Samaranch has made 
a public appeal to the United States.
  I do not mean to be disrespectful but it occurs to me that a previous 
U.S. President canceled U.S. participation in the Olympics in response 
to one country invading another. This time we apparently will attack, 
but not while the Olympics are being held.
  In addition, while our strongest Arab ally in the Gulf War, Saudi 
Arabia, has refused the use of their country from which to base an 
attack, they have expressed strongly that any military strike should be 
well over before the beginning of the annual pilgrimage to Mecca and 
Medina that is the high point of the Islamic year. The Olympics are 
over February 23 and the pilgrimage begins March 20.
  Such are the rather unique things that military planners must factor 
into their planning in this modern world of limited and political 
military strikes.
  Saddam Hussein doubtlessly can pretty much figure out when the strike 
is coming: all he has to do is read the latest Time magazine for the 
latest target and battle plan information and the London Times for the 
Iraqi sites at risk not to mention many other press reports.
  It goes without saying, this will be no surprise attack.
  Nevertheless, additional time will at least afford us the opportunity 
to take a hard look at what is being proposed, especially as Senator 
Hagel has stressed in regard to how a limited strike will fit into long 
term foreign policy goals and the law of unintended consequences.
  First, I recommend to my colleagues and the American public the 
comments made by the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
Senator Richard Russell of Georgia almost 30 years ago to the date. The 
Senator made his remarks in the midst of the Vietnam war and during the 
month in which the United States suffered over 2,000 casualties. He 
said this:
  ``I for one am not afraid of the old fashioned term, victory. We hear 
a great deal about limited wars, but I would point out that there is no 
such thing as a limit on actual combat in which our men are engaged. 
While it is a sound policy to have limited objectives, we should not 
expose our men to unnecessary hazards to life and limb in pursuing 
them.
  The Senator went on to make the following pledge:

       As for me, my fellow Americans, I shall never knowingly 
     support a policy of sending even a single American boy 
     overseas to risk his life in combat unless the entire 
     civilian population and wealth of our country--all that we 
     have and all that we are--is to bear a commensurate 
     responsibility in giving him the fullest support and 
     protection of which we are capable.
       It is inconsistent with our history, traditions and 
     fundamental principles to commit American boys on far-flung 
     battlefields if we are to follow policies that deny them full 
     support because we are afraid of increasing the risk of those 
     who stay at home.
       It is a confession of moral weakness on the part of this 
     country not to take any steps that are necessary to fully 
     diminish the fighting power of our enemies.

  I submit, Mr. President, that is a most powerful statement of truth 
that has direct application to the challenges we face today in the 
Persian Gulf. The only thing that has changed is that today we refer to 
American men and American women.
  The question must be asked, just where are we in regard to specific 
goals regarding Iraq? Last week, in a press conference with Prime 
Minister Blair of Great Britain, President Clinton ``clarified'' 
Administration policy. He said the goal of the proposed attack on Iraq 
would be to, ``substantially reduce or delay Iraq's ability to develop 
and use weapons of mass destruction.''
  The President also ruled out the removal of Saddam Hussein from power 
or action designed to compel him to halt obstruction of disarmament 
inspectors from the U.N.
  The President went on to say, ``I don't believe we need to get into a 
direct war with Iraq over the leadership of the country. Do I think the 
country would be better served if it had a different leader? Of course 
I do. That's not the issue.''
  In making this statement, the President has clearly narrowed the 
goals of the proposed air strike. In fact, in my opinion, he has 
narrowed them from the goals articulated in previous speeches by key 
administration officials and from the goals outlined in consultation 
with Members of Congress.
  Secretary of State Albright, in a speech given last year emphasized 
the American strategy was to continue the sanctions until there was a 
successor regime. The President stated sanctions would continue ``until 
the end of time or as long as he lasts.'' That strategy was changed 
however to one of trying to accommodate Saddam with what was described 
as ``small carrots.'' It was the ``small carrot'' strategy that many 
observers now say led to the current crisis.
  Just last week, members of Congress were told there were two specific 
goals:
  First, to set back Saddam Hussein's ability to deploy and deliver 
weapons of mass destruction and,
  Second, to preserve the ability of the U.N. Security Council to 
respond to the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
by enforcing the disarmament resolutions that ended the 199l Persian 
Gulf war, specifically in regard to unrestricted access for weapons 
inspectors.
  Now, with all due respect to the President and his national security 
advisers, I am concerned the first mission may have a very limited 
success at considerable risk to our men and women in uniform and for 
all intent and purpose, end whatever possibility there is for achieving 
the second mission. The bombing may not destroy Saddam's capacity to 
deploy and deliver weapons of mass destruction but it is almost a sure 
bet bombing Saddam will NOT bring about open inspections.
  This is especially significant in that the current resolution of 
support being crafted by our Senate leadership has been premised on 
U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 and four subsequent resolutions 
demanding open inspections by the U.N. inspection team. The language 
mirrors the statement of the distinguished Democratic Leader, Senator 
Daschle who stated last week:

       The end game is simply to allow access by U.N. inspectors 
     into all locations suspected to be the manufacturing 
     facilities for biological weapons. I don't know what could be 
     more clear than that.


[[Page S545]]


  The Democratic Leader's statement is, in fact, clear and direct. The 
problem, however, is that there is a follow on goal articulated in the 
resolution draft and it says:
  We urge the President, in consultation with the Congress, and 
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and existing laws, to take all 
necessary and appropriate action to respond effectively to the threat 
posed by Iraq's refusal to allow inspection.
  The question is will the bombing be effective? It may set back 
Saddam's capability to deploy and deliver biological weapons and it may 
not. But one thing for sure, after a week of bombing, there will be no 
welcome mats for U.N. inspectors.
  In addition the resolution draft urges the president to work with 
Congress to further a long-term policy.
  My colleagues it has not taken long to discover that we do not have 
the support of our allies, that we do not have a long-term strategy and 
that if we go ahead with the limited military strike we will 
effectively end chances for open inspection, which is precisely the 
original stated goal of the administration and the stated goal of the 
draft resolution of support.
  Now, in making these remarks, I realize the current challenge posed 
by Saddam Hussein is both difficult and complex and that the situation 
in the Gulf and our relations with the members of the Gulf Coalition 
allies has dramatically changed.
  The President stated, ``I don't believe we need to re-fight the Gulf 
war. It's history. It happened. That's the way it is.''
  The President is right. The way it was is not the way it is and we 
have been frantically trying to play catch up in efforts to formulate a 
successful response to Saddam's latest threat.
  Nevertheless, Administration officials state today we have Saddam in 
a box. To the contrary, after repeated efforts to ``lead'' and convince 
our allies in supporting the planned military action, I do not see much 
``following'' and I wonder who has whom in a box.
  It seems to me there are several obvious disconnects:
  First, other than Saddam simply behaving like the international thug 
that he is, we are told his primary reason for closing down the 
inspections is to somehow force an end to the economic sanctions now in 
place, that the deprivation now experienced in his country is such that 
his continued rule is threatened.
  It is true that most of his 22 million people are going through 
severe deprivation. But, this is the man who has a 90,000 strong 
security force made up of well trained, dedicated, fanatical 
professional units that have maintained a climate of terror. To the 
extent one can be, he is both bomb and assassination proof and simply 
gets rid of his opposition even to the extent of using weapons of mass 
destruction upon his own people.
  The argument is also being posed that with France, Russia and China 
all opposing military action, and his Arab neighbors sitting on the 
fence, the United States might then be willing to lift the sanctions or 
at least increase the oil for food and medicine program. But, the 
United States already proposed increasing the oil for food program and 
Saddam refused it. And, he has used oil revenue to further construct 
the many palaces that now house his weapons. In any case, this 
explanation of his reasoning, if true, represents a good argument 
against a military strike.
  In a paradox of enormous irony, it could be argued that by 
withstanding and suffering through the attack and exploiting the 
obvious propaganda opportunity, Saddam may actually gain sympathy and 
support for ending the sanctions from the very nations we are asking 
for help!
  Second, what if Saddam's primary reason for shutting the door to U.N. 
inspectors was simply self preservation, not from within but from Iran? 
In fact, it was the attack from Iran several months ago that 
precipitated the crisis. Saddam, without his weapons of mass 
destruction and Iran with that capability and with a growing army 
represents a self preservation crisis for Saddam.

  A military strike against Saddam further weakens Iraq in relation to 
their long standing enemy. Have we thought through what the Mideast 
will look like when Iran has the balance of power?
  Third, in proposing military action, we do not have the support of 
the members of the Security Council whose credibility and effectiveness 
in enforcing open inspection we are trying to protect! We do not even 
have Security Council or allied support for the continuation of 
sanctions.
  So much for a rational prospective U.N. policy with reference to 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  France wants to sell Iraqi oil, China wants to buy it and Russia 
desperately needs the money that Iraq owes to Russia. All three do not 
support military action and have warned of dire consequences should 
military action be taken.
  While trying to broker a diplomatic solution (Lets see, how about 
eight palaces open for inspection for 60 days with x number of 
inspectors from this country and y number of diplomats from that 
country and on and on) France is worried that American bombs plus Iraqi 
casualties will only consolidate domestic support for Saddam and that 
the bombing does not represent a long term answer. They have a point.
  The Chinese foreign minister, speaking on television, said China is 
extremely and definitely opposed to the use of military force because 
it will result in a tremendous amount of human casualties and create 
more turmoil in the region and could even cause more conflict.
  However, the winner of the Coalition Cross Current Sweepstakes has to 
be Russia. Foreign Minister Primakov has seized an opportunity to climb 
back on the world stage as the self declared pro Muslim broker while 
Boris Yeltsin's comment that bombing could mean ``world war'' could 
well have been made while pounding his shoe on a lectern. But, the Iraq 
issue did not stop there. Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist leader stated 
the Russian Duma should not ratify the START II treaty and said 
Americans ``act like drunk cowboys.'' The ultra nationalist Vladmir 
Zhirinovsky called for Yeltsin to put Russian troops in Southwest 
Russia on alert. Moderate members of the Russian Duma have argued the 
United States must get U.N. authorization before any attack. We cannot 
simply dismiss this sorry state of affairs as just Russian bluff and 
bluster.
  To say that these landmark changes in policy amongst our former 
coalition allies will have grave consequences is an understatement to 
say the least.
  Fourth, we do not have the support of the Arab nations whose 
sovereignty and freedom were are allegedly trying to protect! With the 
exception of Kuwait, no Arab nation has endorsed American threats of 
military action.
  Saudi Arabia, our closest Arab ally and a major regional power 
provided a crucial base for 500,000 American and allied troops that 
routed Iraqi forces back in 199l. Today, Saudi Arabia has refused to 
support a military strike upon Saddam Hussein and Secretary of Defense 
Cohen and the Commander of U.S. Forces in the Middle East, General 
Anthony Zinni have been forced to change battle plans.
  The Saudi's stance also undercuts political support throughout the 
Arab world sensitive to the view that the United States has already 
excessively punished the Iraqi people and that the limited attack will 
not rid the Gulf region of Saddam and that he will remain as vengeful 
as ever.

  In proposing limited strikes, the United States is in the position 
comparable to local law enforcement asking a witness to testify against 
the Mafia with no promise of incarceration or protection. Those chances 
are slim and none.
  Like other staunch allies during the Gulf war, Turkey is now putting 
its own interests first regarding any confrontation with Saddam. Their 
foreign minister has also been one of the revolving door diplomats 
trying to broker a solution. Seen in the rest of the Muslim world as a 
pawn of the United States, having suffered economic losses as a result 
of the Gulf war, and having to fight Kurdish rebels, the Turks have 
also refused the use of air bases.
  There is no doubt that most leaders in the Muslim world would like to 
be rid of Saddam Hussein. They view him as a menace. But, the political 
reality is that limited bombing with no plan for getting rid of the 
menace will lead

[[Page S546]]

to the perception of the United States conducting a military exercise 
with innocent civilians being killed on world wide television with 
ominous repercussions throughout the Muslim world . . . including the 
trouble spots of Bosnia and in Indonesia.
  Our policy has also made Israel more than a little nervous. Israeli 
leaders have stated they reserve the right for self protection and will 
act in accordance with their defense interests. Once again, we are 
trying to convince Israel to forgo its right to self defense and 
retaliation. A retaliatory attack upon Israel in response to U.S. 
bombing may be unlikely but it cannot be ruled out. Such a missile 
exchange would have devastating consequences.
  Fifth, as a result of Arab denial to use our bases in their 
countries, the United States must now launch any attack from aircraft 
located in neighboring gulf states, from aircraft carriers and from an 
Indian ocean island. The USS Independence was supposed to be 
decommissioned this coming September but now, the oldest ship in the 
fleet, is in the Gulf.
  This renewed buildup of sea and air forces in the Gulf and the 
corresponding manpower and equipment gaps in Europe and the Pacific is 
another example of just how stressed and stretched our U.S. military 
has become, all in the wake of substantial troop cuts and rising 
commitments to various peacemaking and nation-building missions such as 
Bosnia. We are already experiencing serious problems in regard to 
readiness, modernization, procurement and military quality of life.
  If we sustain a three carrier force in the Gulf, it will mean zero 
presence somewhere else. Yet, Navy command has mapped out plans for two 
carrier presence through 1999. Our Air Force is not structured as a 
mobile expeditionary force. Accustomed to operating out of large bases, 
the new operations and personnel tempo has caused serious retention 
problems.
  The obvious budget, military readiness, national security and foreign 
policy repercussions will be far reaching. Without question we cannot 
fund this current buildup and prospective military strike from within 
the current defense budget. If this is, in fact, an emergency requiring 
a military strike, then it should be funded by an emergency 
supplemental bill.
  I must ask, has enough consideration been given to the collective 
risks that could well outweigh whatever benefit a limited military 
strike might bring?
  Can we really ascertain the extent of Saddam's air and missile 
defense?
  Can we, with any degree of certainty effectively target and destroy 
his most deadly weapons and eliminate the threat?
  Do we have adequate protection for the men and women who will conduct 
the operation? Personnel recovery? POW recovery?
  Can this strike destroy most of Saddam's deployment and delivery 
capability?
  Will this action end all chances of further inspection? If this is 
true, what happens next when his capability is restored?
  Will this strike hurt or improve his support within and without his 
country?
  Will the strike prevent Saddam from counter-attacking and using 
weapons of mass destruction?
  Will Iran attack a weakened Iraq?
  What will be the response of the Muslim nations throughout the world?
  How will the attack change Saddam's conduct?
  Are our forces adequately equipped and protected against biological 
and chemical agents?
  Have we considered the possibility of terrorist activities both in 
the Mideast and in the United States?
  There is almost no end to these kind of questions and there is no 
question that the President's national security team and Pentagon 
planners have studied all of these questions and more with great care 
and purpose. `
  I can say as a member of the Armed Services and Intelligence 
Committees, I have great faith and a sense of personal pride and trust 
in our military and in our intelligence community. But, I also know 
that too often in the past military action has been rooted in misguided 
policy and our military has suffered the consequences.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, has 
already found it necessary to refute allegations that the battle plan 
and targets in Iran have been drafted and selected by the executive as 
opposed to warfighters, a charge that harkens back to the limited and 
political decision making in the Vietnam war. There is no question that 
our military will obey their Commander in Chief and will do an 
exemplary job, no matter what the mission. That is how it should be and 
is. Nevertheless, I would be less than candid if I did not say judging 
from the private commentary from many within the military and public 
questions from those with expertise in military tactics and national 
security that this proposed strike may well be flawed and 
counterproductive.
  Administration spokesmen have stated that this strike will attempt to 
destroy as much of Saddam Hussein's capability to deploy and deliver 
chemical and biological weapons as possible: not the actual material 
mind you, but the delivery means. But, we will not be able to destroy 
all of that delivery means.
  So, at the end of the attack, at the end of the day, when all is said 
and done, with civilian and military casualties, Saddam will still be 
in power, his scientists will still be at work, his military and the 
Republican Guard still deployed, some of his weapons of mass 
destruction and their delivery means will still be intact. It strains 
credibility that there will be any chance of inspections. In a year or 
two we may have to do it all over again.
  In the meantime, we will have a continued erosion of faith and 
confidence with our allies, anti-American sentiment throughout the 
Muslim world, and the horrors of war on international television 
courtesy of Saddam Hussein. If our bombing does not kill innocent 
civilians, then Saddam will.
  This is not some kind of impersonal therapy to correct Saddam's 
behavior we are contemplating. Too often we refuse to recognize the 
reality and horrors of war. In this regard, there is a pretty good 
test. Imagine what you would say to the loved one of an American 
service man or woman who will be put in harms way and may not return. 
For what did that airman, soldier, sailor or Marine die? Justify that 
loss. Many times in our history we have been able to do so with the 
knowledge and comfort in knowing that our nation and our individual 
freedoms were protected. Tragically, there have been other times we 
have not. We could not in Vietnam. We could not in Beirut. We could not 
in Somalia. Unleashing the horrors of war can be justified only to 
protect our vital national interests and to get rid of a greater evil. 
I am concerned the proposed military strike may not do either.

  Mr. President, before we consider S. Con. Res. 71, these concerns 
should be answered and other policy alternatives should be considered.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________