[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.''

                          ____________________