[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 127 (Wednesday, October 2, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6974-H6975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CAUTION IS URGED IN STRIKE AGAINST IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the very distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for allowing me the courtesy to
speak this evening.
As the daughter of a family of infantrymen and Marines, I was
particularly captivated by an article I read just a few days ago in USA
Today's editorial page entitled ``Untested Administration Hawks Clamor
For War,'' by James Bamford, who is a member of USA Today's board of
contributors. I would like to read a portion of it into the Record and
insert it in its entirety.
He says, ``Beware of war hawks who never served in the military.
That, in essence, was the message of retired four star Marine Corps
General Anthony Zinni, a highly decorated veteran of the Vietnam War
and the White House point man on the Middle East crisis. Zinni is one
of the growing number of uniform officers in and out of the Pentagon
urging caution on the issue of a preemptive strike against Iraq.
``In an address recently in Florida, he warned his audience to watch
out for the administration's civilian superhawks, most of whom avoided
military service as best they could. `If you ask my opinion,' said
Zinni, referring to Iraq, `General Brent Scowcroft, General Colin
Powell, General Norman Schwarzkopf and General Zinni may all see this
the same way.'
{time} 1915
``It might be interesting to wonder why all of the generals see it
the same way, and all those (who) never fired a shot in anger (and) are
really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way.
`` `That's usually the way it is in history,' he said.
``Another veteran, Senator Chuck Hagel . . . who served in combat in
Vietnam and now sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, was even more
blunt. `It is interesting to me that many of those who want to rush
this country into war and think it would be so quick and easy don't
know anything about war. They come at it from an intellectual
perspective versus having sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their
friends get their heads blown off.' '' They have never seen that.
He talks about during the bloodiest years of the Vietnam War, Vice
President Cheney decided against wearing the uniform of his country.
Instead, he used multiple deferments to avoid military service
altogether. In fact, he quotes the Vice President as saying, ``I had
other priorities in the '60s than military service.''
Mr. Cheney is far from alone. ``Neither Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy
Defense Secretary, nor Richard Perle, the Chairman of the Defense
Policy Board, have served in uniform, yet they are now two of the most
bellicose champions of launching a bloody war in the Middle East.
``What frightens many is the arrogance, naivete and cavalier attitude
toward war. `The Army guys don't know anything,' Perle told The
Nation's David Corn earlier this year,'' and debated with him whether
40,000 troops would be sufficient, when indeed most of the military say
200,000 to 250,000 would be needed, plus the support of many allies.
``Non-combatants, however, litter the top ranks of the Republican
hierarchy. President Bush served peacefully in the Texas National
Guard,'' and indeed was missing for 1 year of that service. ``Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spent his time in a Princeton classroom as
others in his age group were fighting and dying on Korean battlefields
(he later joined the peacetime Navy). Another major player in the
administration's war strategy, Douglas Feith, the Defense Under
Secretary for Policy, has no experience in the military. Nor does Mr.
Cheney's influential Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby.
``The top congressional Republican leaders'' in both the House and
Senate ``never saw military service,'' and in contrast, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) here in the House, ``a World War II combat
veteran, has expressed skepticism about hasty U.S. action, as have some
prominent Democrats'' such as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior),
a distinguished Member who was in the military during the Vietnam War.
``What is remarkable about this administration is that so many of
those who are now shouting the loudest and pushing the hardest for this
generation's war are the same people who avoided combat'' themselves,
``or often even a uniform, in Vietnam,'' just simply were not there.
``Military veterans from any era tend to have more appreciation for
the greater difficulty of getting out of a military action than getting
in, a topic administration war hawks haven't said much about when it
comes to Iraq.
``Indeed,'' the author closes, ``the Bush administration's nonveteran
hawks should review the origins of the Vietnam quagmire. Along the way,
they might come across a quote from still another general, this one
William Westmoreland, who once directed the war in Vietnam,'' and said,
The military does not start wars. Politicians start wars.
Also, he quotes Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman, who
observed, ``It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard
the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more
vengeance, more desolation.''
I commend this article to my colleagues. The title of it is
``Untested Administration Hawks Clamor for War.'' I ask Americans to
think about it.
I will insert in the Record at this point the article that I
mentioned previously.
[From USA Today, Sept. 17, 2002]
Untested Administration Hawks Clamor for War
(By James Bamford)
Beware of war hawks who never served in the military.
That, in essence, was the message of retired four-star
Marine Corps general Anthony Zinni, a highly decorated
veteran of the Vietnam War and the White House point man on
the Middle East crisis. Zinni is one of a growing number of
uniformed officers, in
[[Page H6975]]
and out of the Pentagon, urging caution on the issue of a
pre-emptive strike against Iraq.
In an address recently in Florida, he warned his audience
to watch out for the administration's civilian superhawks,
most of whom avoided military service as best they could.
``If you ask me my opinion,'' said Zinni, referring to Iraq,
``Gen. (Brent) Scowcroft, Gen. (Colin) Powell, Gen. (Norman)
Schwarzkopf and Gen. Zinni maybe all see this the same way.
It might be interesting to wonder why all of the generals see
it the same way, and all those (who) never fired a shot in
anger (and) are really hellbent to go to war see it a
different way.
``That's usually the way it is in history,'' he said.
Another veteran, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who served in
combat in Vietnam and now sits on the Foreign Relations
Committee, was even more blunt. ``It is interesting to me
that many of those who want to rush this country into war and
think it would be so quick and easy don't know anything about
war,'' he said. ``They come at it from an intellectual
perspective vs. having sat in jungles or foxholes and watched
their friends get their heads blown off.''
The problem is not new. More than 100 years ago, another
battle-scarred soldier, Civil War Gen. William Tecumseh
Sherman, observed: ``It is only those who have neither fired
a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who
cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation.''
Last month, Vice President Cheney emerged briefly to give
several two-gun talks before veterans groups in which he
spoke of ``regime change'' and a ``liberated Iraq.''
``We must take the battle to the enemy,'' he said of the
war on terrorism. Cheney went on to praise the virtue of
military service. ``The single most important asset
we have,'' he said, ``is the man or woman who steps
forward and puts on the uniform of this great nation.''
But during the bloodiest years of the Vietnam War, Cheney
decided against wearing that uniform. Instead, he used
multiple deferments to avoid military service altogether. ``I
had other priorities in the `60s than military service,'' he
once said.
Cheney is far from alone. For instance, neither Paul
Wolfowitz, the deputy Defense secretary, nor Richard Perle,
chairman of the Defense Policy Board, has served in uniform,
yet they are now two of the most bellicose champions of
launching a bloody war in the Middle East.
What frightens many is the arrogance, naivete and cavalier
attitude toward war. ``The Army guys don't know anything.''
Perle told The Nation's David Corn earlier this year. With
``40,000 troops,'' he said, the United Stats could easily
take over Iraq. ``We don't need anyone else.'' But by most
other estimates, a minimum of 200,000 to 250,000 troops would
be needed, plus the support of many allies.
Even among Republicans, the warfare between the veterans
and non-vets can be intense. ``Maybe Mr. Perle would like to
be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad,'' Hagel,
who came home from Vietnam with two Purple Hearts and a
Bronze Star, told The New York Times.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Vietnam combat veteran
and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has often
expressed anger about the class gap between those who fought
in Vietnam and those who did not.
``I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and
well-placed managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National
Guard units.'' he wrote in his 1995 autobiography, My
American Journey. ``Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this
raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to
the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal
allegiance to their country.''
Non-combatants, however, litter the top ranks of the
Republican hierarchy. President Bush served peacefully in the
Texas National Guard. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spent
his time in a Princeton classroom as others in his age group
were fighting and dying on Korean battlefields (he later
joined the peacetime Navy) Another major player in the
administrator's war strategy. Douglas Feith, the Defense
undersecretary for policy, has no experience in the military.
Nor does Cheney's influential chief of staff, Lewis Libby.
The top congressional Republican leaders--Senate Minority
Leader Trent Lott, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House
Majority Leader Dick Armey and House Majority Whip Tom
Delay--never saw military service, either; only one, Armey,
has shown hesitation about invading Iraq. In contrast, House
International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-
Ill., a World War II combat veteran, has expressed skepticism
about hasty U.S. action, as have some prominent Democrats--
House Minority Whip David Bonior, Senate Majority Leader Tom
Daschle and former vice president Al Gore--who were in the
military during the Vietnam War.
No administration's senior ranks, of course, have to be
packed with military veterans in order to make good military
decisions. But what is remarkable about this administration
is that so many of those who are now shouting the loudest and
pushing the hardest for this generations's war are the same
people who avoided combat, or often even a uniform, in
Vietnam, their generation's war.
Military veterans from any era tend to have more
appreciation for the greater difficulty of getting out of a
military action than getting in--a topic administration war
hawks haven't said much about when it comes to Iraq.
Indeed, the Bush administration's non-veteran hawks should
review the origins of the Vietnam quagmire. Along the way,
they might come across a quote from still another general,
this one William Westmoreland, who once directed the war in
Vietnam.
``The military don't start wars,'' he said ruefully.
``Politicians start wars.''
____________________