[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.

                          ____________________