[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16162-16163]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS ON IRAQ

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to express my growing 
concern that we may shortly be faced with a decision to unilaterally 
invade another nation-state, and that is the State of Iraq. This 
concern has been heightened by the news of today's assassination 
attempt of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kandahar. Earlier on, a car 
bomb exploded in central Kabul, killing at least 22 people.
  This event, in my view, underscores the point that our primary focus 
must remain on our immediate war on terrorism being waged in troubled 
Afghanistan, where our soldiers are on the front line. As a matter of 
fact, preliminary reports indicate it was Americans who took down the 
attempted assassins.
  While I welcome President Bush's recent statement indicating he will 
seek congressional approval of such a use of force, I believe any 
action in Iraq at this time, without allied support, without United 
Nations support, and without a compelling case for just cause, would be 
both morally wrong and politically mistaken.
  I just returned from a trip to Europe. As part of my role as chairman 
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, I toured 
U.S. military bases and met with a variety of individuals. They 
included members of the intelligence community, the military, and the 
International Atomic Energy Agency.
  I was shocked at how dramatically perceptions in Europe have shifted 
since September 11 toward our country. All of the sympathy and concern 
we received in the wake of the terrorist attacks has apparently 
vanished, replaced by the sense that the United States is becoming an 
arrogant and aggressive power, a nation that simply gives orders, a 
nation that neither listens nor hears.
  When I was in Europe, much attention was given to the absence of 
Presidential participation at the Summit on Sustainable Development in 
Johannesburg. And this, on top of our rejection of the Kyoto treaty, 
our casting of aspersions on international accords such as the 
International Criminal Court, the Anti-Ballistic Missile and Landmine 
treaties, has led to a growing belief, right or wrong, that the United 
States is using its power in an increasingly unilateral and somewhat 
arrogant manner.
  Above all, there is our approach to Iraq and our perceived readiness 
to invade that nation unilaterally.
  I believe we have to ask many critical questions, most of which are 
unanswered.
  Questions about the ongoing war on terrorism. How do we stay the 
course, root out terrorism and, at the same time, initiate war with a 
nation-state which, to this day, remains unconnected to 9/11.
  Questions about the extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass 
destruction and about who will get to them first.
  Questions about going it alone in Iraq.
  Questions about casualties and cost.
  Questions about collateral human damage--civilians killed in the 
short term and in the long run.
  Questions about the future of Iraq, about whether we can honestly 
expect a democracy to be created out of a nation consumed by tribal 
factionalism.
  And questions about what the long-term impact might be on the Arab 
world, on the Middle East. What if Iraq attacks Israel? What will we 
do, and what will the world do?
  Present United States policy toward Iraq stands in stark contrast to 
how we conducted Operation Desert Storm just over a decade ago. Then, 
the first Bush administration spent several months building a broad-
based coalition that included 30 nations, including many in the Islamic 
world. It sought and received resolutions supporting the use of force 
against Iraq from the United States Congress and the United Nations 
Security Council, and American and international public opinion stood 
firmly behind such action. Today, no nation is firmly allied with the 
United States on this issue.
  At the very least, I believe we should launch a major diplomatic 
effort with the United Nations, our allies, and our Arab friends, with 
the goal of delivering an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein: Either open up 
or go down.
  If he does not comply with this demand, it will give the United 
States added moral and diplomatic strength to any future effort. It 
will help unite the world community behind us.
  Additionally, I am very concerned that the United States stay the 
course on our war against terrorism. To date, there is no direct 
connection between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the 9/11 attacks that has 
been substantiated.
  This means staying the course in our war against terrorism, part of 
which exists in Afghanistan. The government of Hamid Karzai is fragile 
at best. Today should show that. During its first 6 months in power, 
two Cabinet officials have been assassinated. Today, President Karzai 
himself barely escaped an assassination attempt, and a major act of 
terrorism has killed many in central Kabul. The Karzai government must 
have security and stability, or it will perish and so will democracy.
  Additionally, we know the Taliban and al-Qaida lurk in the remote 
mountains, waiting for an opportune moment to come back. If Afghanistan 
cannot be stabilized, if its streets and homes cannot be made secure, 
and if its first democratic government cannot survive, this will be a 
very serious setback.
  Afghanistan is our beachhead in the war on terror. We cannot lose it, 
or we lose the war on terror. We must put al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, 
and a host of other terrorist groups out of business before they can 
strike out again at America and our interests.
  That is why concentrating on this war--the critical war against 
terrorism--is so important.
  An attack on Iraq at this time would only deflect from this war, by 
diverting attention and forces away from bringing to justice the 
perpetrators of 9/11. Can we afford to do this?

[[Page 16163]]

  If there is an imminent threat to the United States or to our 
interests, then we must act. At this moment, however, I do not believe 
such a threat exists. No one doubts that Iraq has chemical or 
biological weapons and the means to deliver them. They have used them 
on at least three occasions, but they have not used them in the last 10 
years, and I believe they know what will happen if they do use them.
  What is less clear, however, is the status of Iraq's nuclear weapons 
capability. In 1981, Israel destroyed the Osiraq reactor provided by 
France. While Iraq continues to seek to develop nuclear capability, 
there is no evidence I have found that Iraq is nuclear capable today. 
So there is no imminent threat.
  Secretary Rumsfeld has claimed that if we wait for Iraq to develop 
nuclear weapons, then it will be too late. He is right. The key is to 
find a way to stop Iraqi nuclear ambition, and stop it now, which is 
why opening Iraq's borders to a search and destroy mission for weapons 
of mass destruction, conducted by our allies, our friends in the Arab 
world, and the United Nations, is critical.
  I believe this requires renewed diplomatic efforts on our part, with 
the United Nations, with our allies, and with friendly Arab nations. We 
must stop Iraq from becoming nuclear capable. And the world in turn 
must respond. Otherwise, an attack becomes the only alternative.
  As Gen. Wesley Clark recently stated:

       In the war on terrorism, alliances are not an obstacle to 
     victory. They're the key to it.

  By acting unilaterally, the United States not only runs the risk of 
isolating these long-standing allies, but also of solidifying the 
entire Arab world sharply against us. This may not result in any direct 
or traditional military response against the United States, but what 
about a personal jihad throughout this country--a jihad of bombs and 
other terrorist acts carried out throughout the world?
  There are people out there eminently capable and able to finance 
doing just that.
  With the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not yet under control, a United 
States attack on Iraq would certainly fuel the fire of Islamic 
fanaticism, uniting the Arab world against the West and Israel. The 
consequences could be unprecedented and beyond our present 
comprehension.
  The Israeli-Palestinian situation should be our highest priority. 
This conflict must be resolved. The United States must use its 
influence and leadership here, with the Israelis, the Palestinians, and 
the surrounding Arab world. Here, too, we must stay the course.
  At the same time, there is some troubling evidence today of the 
preparation of a second front in southern Lebanon to attack Israel in 
the event we attack Iraq. Ambassador Dennis Ross recently told me of 
thousands--he mentioned 10,000--extended-range Katyusha rockets that 
have been moved through Syria from Iran and into southern Lebanon, for 
an attack on Israel. He said they had been extended so that they could 
hit at the major Israeli industrial zone north of Haifa. I believe this 
has been confirmed.
  In the face of all of this, assume we do attack Iraq. Consider that 
we mobilize 250,000 to 300,000 soldiers, our aircraft carriers, our B-
52s, our 117s. This will not be another Desert Storm where exposed 
Iraqi troops are routed in the open desert, overwhelmed by American 
airpower.
  This war will be waged in Baghdad, in Tikrit, and in other cities. It 
will be waged from house to house and palace to palace, from street to 
street and school to school and hospital to hospital.
  We will certainly kill many Iraqis, and how many of our own will be 
killed? And will we stay the course once the body bags start coming 
back to Dover? Will Americans stand up and say, ``More''? I think not.
  Then there are the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians civilians 
already brutalized by the last 12 years--who will become casualties in 
this war.
  America has never been an aggressor nation unless attacked, as we 
were at Pearl Harbor and on September 11, or our interests and our 
allies were attacked. We have never initiated a major invasion against 
another nation-state, which leads to the question of whether a 
preemptive war is the morally right, legally right, or the politically 
right way for the United States to proceed.
  Lastly, there is the immensely complicated question of the Iraqi 
nation Saddam Hussein now has and what will happen if he is overthrown. 
Have we really thought out our options here? Have we taken into account 
the deep tribal factionalism and divisions, the bitter and often bloody 
rivalries among the Shia majority, the ruling Sunni minority, and the 
Kurds, that lie at the very root of Iraq? Will we protect the Kurds 
from possible genocide? How long will we stay to secure a new 
government? And who would replace Saddam Hussein?
  Let's be realistic. A democracy is not likely to emerge. One must 
look closely at the history of Iraq to draw such a conclusion, and I 
have.
  Madam President, I would like to quote from the recently published 
book, ``The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein'' by 
Sandra Mackey. She writes:
  When [Saddam Hussein] finally loses his grip on power either 
politically or physically, he will leave Iraq much as it was when the 
British created it--torn by tribalism and uncertain in its identity. It 
is this Iraq that threatens to inflict its communal grievances, its 
decades of non-cooperation, and its festering suspicions and entrenched 
hatreds on the Persian Gulf, the lifeline of our global economy.
  In light of such conditions, is the United States ready to be an 
occupational force? It could take many years for the seeds of a stable 
pluralist society to flourish in Iraq. Are we really ready to spend a 
generation there?
  Given what is at stake here--American lives, American prestige, and 
America's respect for the rule of law--we find ourselves at a critical 
crossroad.
  Again, according to Sandra Mackey:

       . . . the time is fast approaching when the United States, 
     for a series of perilous reasons, will be forced to look 
     beyond Hussein to Iraq itself. That is when all Americans 
     will pay the price for what has been a long night of 
     ignorance about the land between the rivers.

  In closing, I am very happy to see that President Bush will now seek 
congressional approval regarding military action. So this debate has 
just begun.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to 
ensure we not only ask the questions but see that the answers are 
moral, see that they are legal, see that they are befitting the 
greatest democracy on Earth, and see whether they are worth, for the 
first time, the United States of America making a unilateral attack on 
another nation-state.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards.) The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________