[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 41 (Thursday, March 13, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3699-S3701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE COUNTDOWN TO WAR
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last Thursday, at his press conference, the
President of the United States gave his reasons to justify the use of
military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
The President said again that he has not made up his mind to go to
war, but his own advisers are saying that even if Iraq fully complies
with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein must be
removed from power.
The President said his goal is protecting the American people from
terrorism. That is a goal we all share. But he offered no evidence that
Iraq had anything to do with the September 11 attacks or any details of
Iraq's links to al-Qaida.
He offered no new information about the potential costs of a war,
either in American and Iraqi lives, or in dollars. Both Republicans and
Democrats have urged the President to be more forthcoming with the
American people, to tell us what sacrifices may be involved--not to
have Cabinet members come to the Senate and the House, and when asked
how much they estimate a war and its aftermath may cost, say: We have
no idea.
We know the administration has estimated the costs, yet the President
dismissively says ``ask the spenders'' in Congress, knowing full well
that Congress appropriates funds, it is the President who spends them.
It is disingenuous, at best, to refuse to level with the American
people at a time of rapidly escalating deficits. We know it has already
cost billions of dollars just to send our troops over there, but how
many more tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, may be added to the
deficit? The President is apparently ready to send hundreds of
thousands of America's sons and daughters into battle without saying
anything about the costs and risks.
The President repeatedly spoke of the danger of ``doing nothing,'' as
if doing nothing is what those who urge patience and caution--with war
only as a last resort--are recommending. In fact, virtually no one is
saying we should do nothing about Saddam Hussein.
Even most of the millions of people who have joined protests and
demonstrations against the use of force without U.N. Security Council
authorization are not saying the world should ignore Saddam Hussein.
Yet that is the President's answer to those who oppose a preemptive
U.S. invasion, and who, contrary to wanting to do nothing, want to give
the United Nations more time to try to solve this crisis without war.
The President also failed to address a key concern that divides
Americans, that divides us from many of our closest European allies,
that divides our allies from each other, and that divides the U.N.
Security Council. That issue is not whether or not Saddam Hussein is a
deceptive, despicable, dangerous despot who should be disarmed. There
is little, if any, disagreement about that.
Nor is it whether or not force should ever be used. Most people
accept that the United States, like any country, has a right of self-
defense if it is faced with an imminent threat. If the U.N. inspectors
fail to disarm Iraq, force may become the only option.
Most people also agree that a United States-led invasion would
quickly overwhelm and defeat Iraq's ill-equipped, demoralized army.
Rather, the President said almost nothing about the concern shared by
so many people, that by attacking Iraq to enforce Security Council
Resolution 1441 without the support of key allies on the U.N. Security
Council, we risk weakening the Security Council's future effectiveness
and our own ability to rally international support not only to prevent
this war and future wars, but to deal with other global threats like
terrorism. This concern is exacerbated by the increasing resentment
throughout the world of the administration's domineering and simplistic
``you are either with us or against us'' approach. It has damaged
longstanding relationships, relationships that have taken decades of
trust and diplomacy to build, both with our neighbors in this
hemisphere and our friends across the Atlantic.
[[Page S3700]]
The President says that if the Security Council does not support the
use of force today, it risks becoming irrelevant. The President has it
backward. The Security Council would not become irrelevant because it
refuses to obey the President of the United States. Rather, the
Security Council's effectiveness is threatened if the United States
ignores the will of key allies on the Security Council regarding the
enforcement of a Security Council resolution.
The President was also asked by several members of the press why
there is such fervent opposition to his policy among Americans and some
of our oldest allies when only a year and a half ago, after the
September 11 attacks, the whole world was united in sympathy with the
United States. He had no answer.
The President should heed the words of former National Security
Adviser Brent Scowcroft, who was an architect of the 1991 Gulf War.
General Scowcroft has strongly criticized the administration's ad hoc
approach based on a ``coalition of the willing'' which the general
calls ``fundamentally, fatally flawed.'' General Scowcroft said:
As we've seen in the debate about Iraq, it's already given
us an image of arrogance and unilateralism, and we're paying
a high price for that image. If we get to the point where
everyone secretly hopes the United States gets a black eye
because we're so obnoxious, then we'll be totally hamstrung
in the war on terror. We'll be like Gulliver with the
Lilliputians.
For 200 years, people around the world have looked up to the United
States because of our values, our integrity, our tolerance, and our
respect for others. These are the qualities that have set the United
States apart. Today, while most countries share our goal of disarming
Saddam Hussein, we are being vilified for our arrogance, for our
disdain for international law, and our intolerance of opposing views.
A distinguished American career diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, echoed
General Scowcroft's concerns about the practical harm done to U.S.
interests and influence abroad. He recently wrote to Secretary of State
Colin Powell, proffering his resignation as an act of protest about the
administration's policy toward Iraq. I suspect Mr. Kiesling's eloquent
and heartfelt explanation of how he reached the difficult decision to
give up his career expresses the feelings and concerns of some other
American diplomats who are representing the United States at our
embassies and missions around the world.
I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Kiesling's letter to the Secretary
be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEAHY. While I was disappointed by President Bush's remarks last
week, the Bush administration and the Pakistani Government should be
commended for the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, one of al-Qaida's
top leaders who was reportedly the mastermind of the September 11
attacks. Whether others within al-Qaida will quickly fill Mr.
Mohammed's shoes remains to be seen, but the fact that the U.S.
Government and other governments are methodically tracking these people
down sends an important message and should give some comfort to the
American people. This is encouraging. Let's hope we can soon celebrate
the capture of Osama bin Laden, because capturing the leaders of al-
Qaida should be our highest priority.
But the world is increasingly apprehensive as the United States
appears to be marching inexorably towards war with Iraq. Today, there
are more than 250,000 American men and women in uniform in the Persian
Gulf preparing for the order to attack. We hear that the decision must
be made within a matter of days because it is too costly to keep so
many troops deployed overseas. In other words, now that we have spent
billions of dollars to ship all those soldiers over there, we need to
use them because we cannot back down now, as I have heard some people
say. Frankly, this is one of the worst reasons possible to rush into
war.
We should not back down. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. Doing
nothing--I agree with the President about this--would mean the United
Nations is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions concerning perhaps
the most serious threat the world faces today, the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction. That would be unacceptable. The U.N.
Security Council ordered Iraq to fully disclose its weapons of mass
destruction. Iraq has not yet done so.
I agree with those who say the only reason Saddam Hussein is even
grudgingly cooperating with the U.N. inspectors is the buildup of U.S.
troops on Iraq's border. I have commended the President for refocusing
the world's attention on Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm. I also
recognize the time may come when the use of force to enforce the U.N.
Security Council resolution is the only option. But are proposals to
give the U.N. inspectors more time unreasonable, when it could solidify
support for the use of force if that becomes the only option?
Despite the President's assertion that Iraq poses an imminent threat
to the United States, that assertion begs credulity when the U.N.
inspectors are making some progress and a quarter of a million American
soldiers are poised on Iraq's border. Absent a credible, imminent
threat, a decision to enforce Resolution 1441 should only be made by
the Security Council--not by the United States or any other government
alone.
The President says war is a last resort. If he feels that way, why do
he and his advisors want so desperately to short-circuit the inspection
process?
Why is he so anxious to spend billions of dollars to buy the
cooperation of other countries, other countries that do not yet believe
war is necessary?
Why is he so unconcerned about the predictably hostile reaction in
the Muslim world to the occupation of Iraq, perhaps for years, by the
United States military?
Why is the President so determined to run roughshod over our
traditional alliances and partnerships which have served us well and
whose support we need both today and in the future?
I cannot pretend to understand the thinking of those in the
administration who for months or even longer have seemed possessed with
a kind of messianic zeal in favor of war. A preemptive, U.S. attack
against Iraq without a declaration of war by Congress or the U.N.
Security Council's support may be easy to win, but it could violate
international law and cause lasting damage to our alliances and to our
ability to obtain the cooperation of other nations in meeting so many
other global challenges.
Just recently, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned that a
war with Iraq could bring more threats and more terrorist attacks
within the United States. The CIA Director has testified that Saddam
Hussein is more likely to use chemical or biological weapons if he is
attacked. Yet we are marching ahead as though these warnings don't
matter.
I have said before, this war is not inevitable. I still believe it
can be avoided. But I fear that the President, despite opposition among
the American people, in the U.N., and around the world, is no longer
listening to anyone except those within his inner circle who are eager
to fight.
The President says we must overthrow Saddam Hussein to protect the
American people. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but North Korea, on the
verge of acquiring half a dozen nuclear weapons, poses a far more
serious and immediate threat to the United States and the world. Yet
the administration is too preoccupied with Saddam Hussein to be
distracted by North Korea, even though North Korea has shown no qualms
about selling ballistic missiles and anything else that will earn them
money. It makes no sense.
I hope the Iraqi government comes to its senses. I hope we do not
walk away from the U.N. I hope we don't decide that just because our
troops are there, we cannot afford to wait.
Exhibit 1
February 27, 2003.
Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing you to submit my
resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and
from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy
Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart.
The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to
give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat
was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages
and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars
and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and
theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and
its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic
arsenal.
It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State
Department I would become
[[Page S3701]]
more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish
bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies.
Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted
for understanding human nature. But until this Administration
it had been possible to believe that by upholding the
policies of my president I was also upholding the interests
of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.
The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible
not only with American values but also with American
interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us
to squander the international legitimacy that has been
America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense
since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle
the largest and most effective web of international
relationships the world has ever known. Our current course
will bring instability and danger, not security.
The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and
to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is
certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not
seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such
systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in
Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than
before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to
cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the
threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those
successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen
to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a
scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic
ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the
public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of
terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to
justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to
the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect
American citizens from the heavy hand of government.
September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of
American society as we seem determined to do to ourselves.
Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a
selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-
destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?
We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more
of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over
the past two years done too much to asset to our world
partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override
the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims
were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model
of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what
basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image
and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is
blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied
Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military
power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of
post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it
will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to
follow where we lead.
We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many
of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral
capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are
persuaded less that was is justified than that it would be
perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism.
Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone
the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and
allies this Administration is fostering, including among its
most senior officials. Has oderint dum metuant [Ed. note:
Latin for ``Let them hate so long as they fear,'' thought to
be a favorite saying of Caligula] really become our motto?
I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world.
Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-
Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the
American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when
they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the
world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a
strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close
partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than
for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who
will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it
was, a beacon of liberty, security and justice for the
planet?
Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character
and ability. You have preserved more international
credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged
something positive from the excesses of an ideological and
self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the
President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an
international system we built with such toil and treasure, a
web of laws, treaties, organizations and shared values that
sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever
constrained America's ability to defend its interests.
I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile
my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S.
Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process
if ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I
can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better
serve the security and prosperity of the American people and
the world we share.
Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________