[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 3, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4847-H4848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ: WHAT NOW?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
[[Page H4848]]
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, a front-page story today in the Washington
Post says, ``Iraqi political leaders lashed out today at a plan by the
top U.S. civilian administrator here to appoint an interim advisory
council.'' The headline says, ``Iraqis Assail U.S. Plans.''
The front page of the Washington Times has a story today saying,
``Unemployed Iraqi soldiers swarmed U.S. occupation headquarters
yesterday demanding back pay and emergency payments of $50 each and
avowing vengeance if they didn't get their way.''
We are in a real mess in Iraq. Since when did it become the
obligation of U.S. taxpayers to pay the salaries of the Iraqi military?
When in history has a victorious army had to start paying the salaries
of the defeated army? We have already given the retired people on
pensions in Iraq emergency payments, handing out two crisp $20 bills to
each, and probably more by now. Since when did it become the obligation
of U.S. taxpayers to pay the pensions of Iraqi retirees? Those who
support foreign aid found out many years ago that it was very unpopular
so they just started putting our foreign aid and overseas spending into
every Federal department and agency. The supporters of foreign aid very
misleadingly say foreign aid is only about 1 percent of the Federal
budget. What they do not say is that we are spending several hundreds
of billions of dollars through every Federal department and agency.
I am very pro-military and pro-national defense. However, in many
ways today we are turning the Defense Department into the biggest
foreign aid agency there is. We were told a few weeks ago that the
military is going to build or rebuild 6,000 schools in Iraq and set up
a free basic health care plan for all Iraqi citizens. I heard one
Member jokingly say that he was going to suggest changing the name of a
small town in Wisconsin to the name Iraq so that town could qualify for
the huge money that is about to be spent. We are told that the U.S.
will spend $200 to $300 billion rebuilding Iraq over the next 10 years.
This means $20 to $30 billion each year in a country where the gross
domestic product last year was less than $60 billion.
Our military did a great job in Iraq, as we all knew they would. But
we spent over $100 billion to defeat a country whose total military
budget was only $1.4 billion, about two-tenths of 1 percent of ours.
Saddam Hussein was a very evil man, but Iraq was never any real threat
to us, as this 3-week war proved. Now we are in a real mess.
Fortune Magazine, in its November 25 issue a few months before the
war started, had an article entitled ``Iraq, We Win, What Then?'' That
article said, ``A military victory could turn into a strategic defeat.
A prolonged, expensive American-led occupation could turn U.S. troops
into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists. All of that could have
immediate and negative consequences for the global economy.'' That is
exactly what is happening today.
I heard one American general say on the news recently that the
American military was not designed to be a police force. Yet that is
exactly what we are doing in Iraq today. James Webb, a hero in Vietnam
and President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, wrote before the war:
``The issue before us is not whether the U.S. should end the regime of
Saddam Hussein but whether we as a Nation are prepared to occupy a
territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years.'' He was one
of many, many conservatives against this war.
Charley Reese, the very popular conservative columnist, wrote a
column March 24 entitled ``Congratulations'' for becoming ``the proud
mamas and papas of 22 million Iraqis'' since we will be providing them
with so much. He then wrote:
``I have long been against taxing Americans to solve problems in
foreign countries. It seems to me to be a simple proposition. Until an
American politician can honestly say that all Americans are healthy and
prosperous, that all children attend a clean, well-equipped school,
that our entire infrastructure is up to speed, that all of our public
health and environmental problems have been solved, then American tax
dollars ought to be spent in the United States. I've read the
Constitution I don't know how many times, but I never found anywhere in
it that Congress can tax Americans and give the money to foreigners,
but Congress does it, anyway.''
Are true conservatives now for massive foreign aid? I do not think
so. Are true conservatives for huge deficit spending? I do not think
so. Are true conservatives for world government and the U.S. becoming
the world's policeman? I do not think so. Yet we will spend all these
many billions in Iraq because a few big multinational companies will
make sure we do and because some government officials feel more
important if they are placed in charge of other countries.
Charley Reese also wrote in that same column:
``We, of course, will get stuck with the bill and it will cost
hundreds of billions of dollars. Some of the politicians' corporate
cronies are already being promised lucrative contracts. There's always
a profit to be made from war. You and I won't make it; the soldiers,
sailors and airmen won't make it. No, as consumers we pay the price in
treasure and blood and grief; the big corporations reap the profit.''
In yesterday's Washington Post, a story said that some of the same
Iraqis who are smiling at U.S. soldiers are harshly criticizing U.S.
rule when the soldiers are not around. The Iraqi people hated Hussein,
but the only ones who want us around are the ones we are paying.
We should get out of Iraq, Mr. Speaker, the sooner the better and not
put more American lives at risk. We should let Iraqis use their
humongous oil wealth to rebuild their own country.
____________________