[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 26, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4400-S4402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUPPORTING OUR ARMED FORCES
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise this morning with a deep sense of
humility to express this Senator's gratitude for the courage and
bravery being displayed from our President, Commander in Chief, to the
Secretaries of State and Defense, and to, particularly, General Franks
and General Abizaid, and those immediately in charge of the operations
in Iraq, and, most importantly, to the men and women of the Armed
Forces under these commands, and their families.
We all start this morning with expressing our deepest condolences to
the families and loved ones who have lost members of the Armed Forces.
That is the cost of freedom.
As we watch unfolding the pictorial representation of these families,
as they boldly step up to appear on media, all of us cannot but be
heartened by the courage that the families are showing, and as
exemplified by the men and women in uniform fighting this battle.
I thought to myself, there were roughly 1,300,000 men and women on
active duty prior to the commencement of the larger operations in Iraq.
And as the buildup progressed, the President called up roughly
300,000--somewhat short of that--so for ease of mathematics, about 1.5
million are now on active service, together with their families. I
always mention the families.
In that 1.5 million, if you juxtapose it with the total population of
this Nation of 290 million, roughly one-half of 1 percent--one-half of
1 percent--of our population is out there assuming the full risks of
loss of life and limb to defend freedom and to defend this Nation. That
shows the magnitude of the depth of gratitude that we have to all those
who are engaged in this conflict.
We have conducted--and I commend the administration--each morning, at
9 o'clock, a briefing in S-407. All Senators are invited. We have had
very good attendance. We will have, this afternoon, from 5:30 to 6:30,
a briefing with the Secretary of Defense in S-407 again for all
Senators. But the questions raised there are very good questions. They
are tough questions.
I assure America that the Senate is involved in its oversight
responsibilities as a coequal branch in this conflict, in the judgment
of this Senator. I am proud of the large participation from numbers of
our Senators--questions about the magnitude of the battle plan; is that
sufficient?
Our colleague from North Dakota just mentioned that there had been a
lot of criticism. That is part of the freedoms we enjoy. Those who have
served honorably in our Armed Forces are coming forth with their
expertise. Frankly, I follow it very carefully. I think it has been
constructive on the whole. Nevertheless, the Secretary of Defense, here
in the Vice President's office yesterday afternoon when he met with
several of us, was asked questions on the battle plan. He very firmly
said this battle plan was conceived carefully. It went through the
Joint Chiefs, not once, not twice, but perhaps a dozen times, and was
shared with our principal ally, Great Britain, and others. I have total
confidence in the manner in which this war is being conducted by our
military commanders and, indeed, by the Commander in Chief, the
President.
The question of the prisoners of war is very much on our minds. It is
hoped that the Senate will address this issue in the near future. I
have been in consultation, as have other Senators, with the
distinguished leadership on both sides. It is important that this
institution express its strong sentiment for the care and protection
and adherence to international law as this conflict ensues.
The coalition has been very substantial, over 40 nations. I will ask
unanimous consent to print in the Record following my remarks a
communication from the distinguished Ambassador to the United States
from Australia, Mr. Michael Thawley, along with the comments of the
Prime Minister of Australia.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. WARNER. Australia has been a vital part of the coalition from the
beginning. They have forces in country in Iraq now assisting in many
aspects for the success of this operation.
This morning at around 6:30, I watched the Prime Minister of Great
Britain address Parliament just prior to his departure for the United
States to confer with our President today. In the course of that
dissertation--it is always fascinating for those of us in the Congress
to watch their freewheeling system--the first question out of the box
to the Prime Minister: Will you talk to the President, impressing upon
him the need to address the conflict in the Middle East, most
specifically, the remarks made by the President just recently as to
reasserting once again the efforts of this President to foster the
peace process.
This brings to mind a thought this Senator has had for some time as
to one idea--it is just an idea, a concept, a concept that might help
to bring about some stability in that region--a cessation of some
hopefully large measure of the conflict so that the talks can get under
way. It is difficult to see how any constructive talks can take place
without the cessation of the fighting, the human bombing employed by
the Palestinians, and the retaliation, that is really necessary but all
too often takes place before the cameras, as a disproportionate use of
force in the eyes of the world, by the Israelis, who have been
afflicted so grievously by these human bombs.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter I wrote to
the President just a week or so ago, on March 14.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. WARNER. I will now address the contents of the letter.
Dear Mr. President: I would like to commend you on the step
you took today to give new impetus to the Middle East process
by announcing that it was time to share with Israel and the
Palestinians the road map to peace that the United States has
developed with its ``Quartet'' partners. This is a welcome
and timely initiative, given the complex way in which the
Middle East conflict, Iraq and the global war against
terrorism are intertwined.
I pointed out that I have given basically this same set of remarks in
concept on the floor three times. I have
[[Page S4401]]
addressed the NATO ambassadors and given this concept. It is one
basically that can help to bring about a measure of stability and
cessation to the fighting; that is, at the invitation of the Government
of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, particularly now that the new
Prime Minister has been designated, at that invitation, that NATO be
asked to look at whether or not they could constitute a peacekeeping
force to bring in to work in coordination with the security structures
of both the people of Israel and the people of Palestine in hopes that
the fighting can be brought under control such that the peace talks can
originate. That is something I believe in strongly because it has a
direct relationship, a threat to not only our forces but the other
forces throughout the world of the hatred generated among militants in
that region, generated by this conflict.
To the degree this conflict can be brought under control and peace
talks initiated, hopefully there will be a commensurate lessening of
the threat to our forces, not only the military but our embassies and
others abroad. It is an important step. I commend our President. I hope
they will consider this concept as they proceed.
The war we are witnessing in Iraq was a last resort to disarm a
regime that for more than 12 years has defied the international
community and brutalized its own people. Despicable tactics Iraqis are
using on the battlefield and the way in which they are treating some of
the POWs are further proof of the willingness of this regime to flout
international law and the laws of human decency. The coalition is
taking great efforts to protect innocent civilians and minimize
civilian casualties. Humanitarian assistance--food, water, and
medicine--is already being delivered. That will increase in the days
ahead hopefully.
Once this regime is removed, the Iraqi people can hopefully look
forward to a measure of the freedom they have not experienced these
many years, governed by a rule of law of their own design.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
Embassy of Australia,
Washington, DC, March 21, 2003.
Hon. John Warner,
U.S. Senator, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: I just wanted to thank you very much for your
reference in the Senate debate yesterday to the support of
Australian armed forces in the current fighting in Iraq. It
was greatly appreciated. It is nice to know that our
contribution is valued.
You might like to see the Prime Minister's comments about
the role of our alliance with the United States in the speech
he made to the Australian parliament on our commitment. I
also attach his address to the nation in which he set out the
reasons why the Government had authorized the engagement of
Australian forces in military action.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Thawley,
Ambassador.
____
Extract From Prime Minister Howard's Statement to the Australian
Parliament, 18, March 2003
Our alliance with the United States is unapologetically a
factor in the decision that we have taken. The crucial, long-
term value of the United States alliance should always be a
factor in any major national security decision taken by
Australia.
America has given strong leadership to the world on the
issue of Iraq. The Security Council would not have been re-
energised, the United Nations would not have been re-
energised, had it not been for the action of the United
States returning the issue to the United Nations in September
of last year. We have supported the American position on this
issue because we share their concerns and we share their
worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to.
Alliances are two-way processes and, where we are in
agreement, we should not leave it to the United States to do
all of the heavy lifting just because they are the world's
superpower. To do so would undermine one of the most
important relationships we have and, in an increasingly
globalised and borderless world, the relationship between
Australia and the United States will become more rather than
less important as the years go by.
____
Transcript of the Prime Minister, The Hon. John Howard, MP, Address to
the Nation, March 20, 2003
Good evening: The Government has decided to commit
Australian forces to action to disarm Iraq because we believe
it is right, it is lawful and it's in Australia's national
interest.
We are determined to join other countries to deprive Iraq
of its weapons of mass destruction, its chemical and
biological weapons, which even in minute quantities are
capable of causing death and destruction on a mammoth scale.
Iraq had been an aggressor in the past against its
neighbours and even its own people. If Iraq is allowed to
keep these weapons not only might she use them again but
moreover other rogue countries will copy Iraq knowing that
the world will do nothing to stop them.
And the more countries that have these weapons--countries
run by despotic regimes--the greater becomes the likelihood
that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists. If
that happens can anyone doubt that the terrorists will use
them whatever the cost might be?
The attacks on the 11th of September and in Bali showed
that international terrorists have no regard for human life
no matter what the nationality of their victims may be.
Iraq had long supported international terrorism. Saddam
Hussein pays $25,000 to each family of Palestinian suicide
bombers who wreak such murderous havoc in Israel. He has
sheltered and sponsored many terrorist groups.
International terrorism knows no borders. We have learnt
that to our cost. Australia and Australians anywhere in the
world are as much targets as any other western country and
its people.
Therefore the possession of chemical, biological, or even
worse still, nuclear weapons by a terrorist network would be
a direct undeniable and lethal threat to Australia and its
people.
That is the reason above all others why I passionately
believe that action must be taken to disarm Iraq. Not only
will it take dangerous weapons from that country but it will
send a clear signal to other rogue states and terrorists
groups like Al Qaeda which clearly want such weapons that the
world is prepared to take a stand.
There's also another reason and that is our close security
alliance with the United States. The Americans have helped us
in the past and the United States is very important to
Australia's long-term security.
It is critical that we maintain the involvement of the
United States in our own region where at present there are
real concerns about the dangerous behaviour of North Korea.
The relationship between our two countries will grow more
rather than less important as the years go by.
A key element of our close friendship with the United
States and indeed with the British is our full and intimate
sharing of intelligence material.
In the difficult fight against the new menace of
international terrorism there is nothing more crucial than
timely and accurate intelligence. This is a priceless
component of our relationship with our two very close allies.
There is nothing comparable to be found in any other
relationship--nothing more relevant indeed to the challenges
of the contemporary world.
I know that some people are saying that what we have done
makes it more likely that terrorists will attack Australia.
Australia has been a terrorist target at least since the
11th of September 2001.
Australia is a western country with western values. Nothing
will or should change that. That is why we are a target.
Remember that bin Laden specifically targeted Australia
because of our intervention to save the people of East Timor.
Does any Australian seriously suggest that if bin Laden's
warning had come before the East Timor action we should have
caved in and changed our policy. That will never be the
Australian way.
We believe that so far from our action in Iraq increasing
the terrorist threat it will, by stopping the spread of
chemical and biological weapons, make it less likely that a
devastating terrorist attack will be carried out against
Australia.
I want to assure all of you that the action we are taking
is fully legal under international law. Back in the early
1990s resolutions were passed by the Security Council
authorizing military action against Iraq.
That action was only suspended on condition that Iraq gave
up its weapons of mass destruction. Clearly we all know this
has not happened. As a result the authority to take military
action under those earlier resolutions has revived.
America's critics both here and abroad have been both
opportunistic and inconsistent. They know and admit that
weapons inspectors only returned to Iraq because of the
pressure of the American military build-up. Yet they have
persistently criticized American policy.
Apparently they believe that a quarter of a million
American, British and indeed Australian troops should stay in
the desert doing nothing indefinitely. We all know that if
the troops had been withdrawn Iraq would have immediately
stopped its minimal co-operation with the inspectors.
Another point I'd make to you very strongly is that we're
not dealing here with a regime of ordinary brutality. There
are many dictatorships in the world. But this is a
dictatorship of a particularly horrific kind.
His is an appalling regime: its torture, its use of rape as
an instrument of intimidation, the cruelty to children to
extract confessions from parents. It is a terrible catalogue
of inflicting human misery on a people who deserve much
better.
This week, the Times of London detailed the use of a human
shredding machine as a
[[Page S4402]]
vehicle for putting to death critics of Saddam Hussein. This
is the man, this is the apparatus of terror we are dealing
with.
The removal of Saddam Hussein will lift this immense burden
of terror from the Iraqi people.
Our argument is with Saddam Hussein's regime. It is
certainly not with Islam.
Australians of an Arab background or of the Islamic faith
are a treasured part of our community. Over the weeks ahead
and beyond we should all extend to them the hand of
Australian mateship.
To those in the community who may not agree with me, please
vent your anger against me and towards the government.
Remember that our forces are on duty in the Gulf in our name
and doing their job in the best traditions of Australia's
defence forces.
Can I say something that I know will find an echo from all
of you whether or not you agree with the Government. And that
is to say to the men and women of the Australian Defence
Force in the Gulf--we admire you, we are thinking of you, we
want all of you to come back home safe and sound. We care for
and we anguish with your loved ones back here in Australia.
Our prayers and our hopes are with all of you.
We now live in a world made very different by the scourge
of international terrorism.
This has been a very difficult decision for the Government
but a decision which is good for Australia's long term
security and the cause of a safer world. Good night.
____
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, March 14, 2003.
President George W. Bush,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I would like to commend you on the step
you took today to give new impetus to the Middle East peace
process by announcing that it was time to share with Israel
and the Palestinians the road map to peace that the United
States has developed with its ``Quartet'' partners. This is a
welcome and timely initiative, given the complex way in which
the Middle East conflict, Iraq and the global war against
terrorism are intertwined.
The festering hostilities in the Middle East are an
enormous human tragedy. Along with you, and many others, I
refuse to accept that this is a conflict without end. You
have articulated a vision of an Israeli and a Palestinian
state living side by side in peace and security. That is a
bold initiative that deserves strong international support.
With the Israeli elections concluded, and the imminent
confirmation of a Palestinian Prime Minister, you are right
to refocus international attention on the Middle East peace
process.
Mr. President, in August 2002, I wrote to you to propose an
idea concerning the possibility of offering NATO peacekeepers
to help implement a cease-fire in the Middle East. I have
spoken of this idea numerous times on the Senate Floor. I am
now even more convinced that the United States and its NATO
partners should consider an additional element for the ``road
map'' concept: NATO should offer, and I stress the word
``offer,'' to provide a peacekeeping force, once a cease-fire
has been established by the Israeli Government and the
Palestinian authority. This NATO force would serve in support
of the cease-fire mechanisms agreed to by Israel and the
Palestinian Authority. The NATO offer would have to be
willingly accepted by both governments, and it in no way
should be viewed as a challenge to either side's sovereignty.
The acceptance of this offer would have to be coupled with a
commitment by Israel and the Palestinian Authority to
cooperate in every way possible to permit the peacekeeping
mission to succeed.
I fully recognize that this would not be a risk-free
operation for the participating NATO forces. But I
nonetheless believe that the offer of peacekeepers from NATO
would have many benefits. First, it would demonstrate a
strong international commitment to peace in the Middle East.
Second, it would offer the prospect of a peacekeeping force
that is ready today. It is highly capable, rapidly
deployable, and has a proven record of success in the
Balkans. A NATO peacekeeping force is likely to be acceptable
to both parties, given the traditional European sympathy
for the Palestinian cause and the traditional United
States support of Israel.
Third, this would be a worthy post-Cold War mission for
NATO in a region where NATO member countries have legitimate
national security interests. It could even be an area of
possible collaboration with Russia through the NATO-Russia
Council. A NATO peacekeeping mission in the Middle East would
be wholly consistent with the Alliance's new Strategic
Concept. Approved at the NATO Summit in Washington in April
1999, the new Strategic Concept envisioned so called ``out-
of-area'' operations for NATO.
Given the fractious debate in NATO over Iraq and the
defense of Turkey, it would be important to show that NATO
can work together to make a positive contribution to solving
one of the most challenging security issues of our day.
There will be many detractors to the idea of sending NATO
peacekeepers to the Middle East to help implement a cease-
fire. But I think there is a broad agreement on the
imperative of giving new hope to the peace process and
redoubling diplomatic efforts to keep Israel and the
Palestinians moving on the road to peace. Peacekeepers coming
from many NATO nations could give new hope and confidence to
the peoples of Israel and Palestine that there could soon be
an end to the violence that overhangs their daily lives.
Mr. President, I hope that you will receive this idea in
the constructive spirit in which it is offered,
With kind regards, I am
Respectfully,
John Warner,
Chairman.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
____________________