[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 15]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 21177-21178]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                FIXATION ON IRAQ DOES NOT MAKE US SAFER

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JIM McDERMOTT

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 16, 2002

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article.

                          (By Stimson Bullitt)

       How best can we defend our territory, our government and 
     our lives from present threats?
       The big threat comes from the author of the most serious 
     attack on us, al-Qaida, the network of cells scattered across 
     much of the world.
       Rather than a conventional war against another nation, to 
     defeat this enemy calls for police action against a criminal 
     gang, and its members through an integrated program: 
     Intelligence to track and discover, and action to prosecute, 
     those who undertake and plan attacks on us.

[[Page 21178]]

       Second, restrict the most dreadful weapons. For this, we 
     must cease our Lone Ranger approach, refusing to cooperate to 
     limit creation and spread of nuclear, chemical and biological 
     weapons. As a step toward observance of a rule of law between 
     nations, we should cease to refuse to join the International 
     Criminal Court. Our expressed fear of being prosecuted 
     recalls the Old Testament verse: ``The guilty flee when no 
     man pursueth.''
       It has been proposed that we shift our concentration to 
     Iraq because its brutal and ruthless leadership is hostile to 
     us and has a record of seeking to develop deadly weapons. The 
     proposal is to remove both the leadership and the weapons and 
     to do so by making war against that country, How does Iraq 
     threaten us, and what price may we pay to remove the threat?
       Far off, and with no navy, Iraq cannot invade us. Nor does 
     it have the only other means by which it directly could 
     attack us: long-range planes or missiles. An ICBM silo can't 
     be trundled around between hiding places and is easy to spot 
     and to destroy. If Iraq were to undertake some, as soon as 
     they were observed under construction, our forces should and 
     would dispatch them like the proverbial ducks in a barrel. 
     That's the place for preemptive strikes.
       Iraq could seek to attack us indirectly by assisting al-
     Qaida to smuggle weapons across our border. The most 
     destructive means would be an atom bomb in a ship's hold, 
     incinerating one of our port cities.
       However, like Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Algeria, Iraq has a 
     Muslim population but a secular government, not a theocracy. 
     By contrast, al-Qaida is composed of impassioned Islamist 
     fanatics. Iraq's government may hesitate to entrust weapons 
     to those whose dislike and distrust may turn them back 
     against it.
       Rather than seeking such a weapon from Iraq's government, 
     disinclined to furnish one even if it had one, a]-Qaida 
     agents may be more likely to seek one from territory of the 
     former Soviet Union, where countless and uncounted nukes are 
     under the charge of lowpaid bureaucrats, many of whom are 
     incompetent or criminal.
       Would our prospective gain from reducing or avoiding the 
     foregoing modest risk exceed the price that a solo invasion 
     would impose on us?
       Quantities of American soldiers' lives and taxpayers' 
     dollars would depend on war's uncertainties, among which 
     would be the weapons Iraq may have available to use against 
     our invading troops. If its armed force is as strong as we 
     are told it is, to overcome it will impose a heavy cost.
       Going alone would demonstrate such disagreement that would 
     lead to refusals of the needed cooperative action for the 
     long, long war on international terrorism. When we act 
     without allies, where international law calls for some degree 
     of consent among the leading nations, our disregard of such 
     law impairs our influence, reduces our power. If we think we 
     can protect ourselves from cells of zealots without the 
     willing cooperation of governments where they are located, we 
     are nuts.
       Prospective allies' unwillingness to commit combat troops 
     to the endeavor would give us pause, raising doubt in 
     reasonable minds. Are we really the only one right, and all 
     others wrong?
       Left with the job of rebuilding a nation unfamiliar with 
     democratic processes or government under law, we would risk 
     the chaos that would set Iraq's neighbors at war.
       It would not stop al-Qaida's war on us but would intensify 
     its energies. Terrorists are widespread. Iraq did not send 
     Mohammed Atta or Timothy McVeigh, nor did it organize al-
     Qaida or the Aryan Nations. After Oklahoma City, we convicted 
     two men. We did not attack Aryan Nations communities in 
     northern Idaho or in Michigan. If England struck Boston, from 
     which some of the IRA bombings in England have been financed, 
     we would not approve.
       To assault a nation, whether Afghanistan, Iraq or another, 
     fails to protect our country from terrorist attacks. And it 
     kills an unnecessary number of people. Violating human 
     morality reduces our claim to stand for civilized decency as 
     a nation. Others should be killed only when necessary to 
     defend our liberty or lives.
       By violating our duty of ``a decent respect to the opinions 
     of mankind,'' in Jefferson's phrase, we terrify and offend 
     other nations and thereby increase the numbers and passions 
     of those who will aim terrorist attacks against us.
       Stimson Bullitt is a lawyer, developer of Harbor Steps in 
     downtown Seattle, and former president of KING Broadcasting. 
     He has written several books, including ``To Be A 
     Politician.''

     

                          ____________________