[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17177-17178]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        LEAVE IRAQ TO THE IRAQIS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gerlach). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, it seems that every day we read about a 
young American soldier being killed in Iraq. Three were killed in a 24-
hour period from Sunday to Monday. In its November 25 issue, 
``Fortune'' magazine, long before the war started, said an American 
occupation would be ``prolonged and expensive'' and that it ``could 
turn U.S. troops into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists.''
  Unfortunately, this prediction has turned out to be deadly accurate. 
This past Saturday, the top of the front page of The Washington Post 
had a headline reading ``Attacks By Iraqi's Growing Bolder.'' The next 
day a young American soldier was shot in the head at point blank range 
as he stood in line to buy a soft drink.
  A few days ago, the leading Shiite cleric, the most respected figure 
of the largest population group in Iraq, demanded that the U.S. get out 
and leave Iraq to the Iraqis. It is so politically correct today and 
sounds so fashionable and intellectual to say that the U.S. will have 
to be in Iraq for several years and that it will not be easy and that 
we must be prepared for the sacrifice and the difficulties ahead.
  Well, someone should ask why. Saddam Hussein was a very evil man, a 
tyrant, a dictator; but his total military budget was only about two-
tenths of 1

[[Page 17178]]

percent of ours. He was no threat to us, as this 3-week battle, with 
almost no resistance, proved. Our military did a great job, as we all 
knew they would. Now we should bring them home.
  President Eisenhower, as everyone knows, was a retired Army general, 
a graduate of West Point. He loved the military. Yet he warned us as 
strongly as he possibly could against what he call the military 
industrial complex. Pressured by this complex, we have now spent over 
$100 billion on the operation in Iraq. The Congressional Budget Office 
originally estimated that a 3-month war followed by a 5-year occupation 
would cost us at least $272 billion. Most estimate that we will stay in 
Iraq for 5 to 10 years, at a cost of 200 to $300 billion, or more. And 
because we already face a $400 billion deficit for this year, and 
hundreds of billions more in the years ahead, we will have to borrow 
the money to do all this. Once again, we should ask: Why?
  Already we have had demonstrations by Iraqi soldiers demanding back 
pay, and similar demands from Iraqi retirees. Why should Americans 
taxpayers borrow hundreds of billions to pay the Iraqi military or 
Iraqi retirees to rebuild Iraq? We are jeopardizing the futures of our 
children and grandchildren. I believe our Founding Fathers would be 
shocked if they knew what we were doing today.
  I remember reading a few years ago in the Washington Post that we had 
our troops in Haiti picking up garbage and settling domestic disputes. 
Later I read that we had our troops in Bosnia building latrines and 
giving rabies shots to Bosnian dogs. I have nothing against the people 
in either Haiti or Bosnia, but they should pick up their own garbage 
and build their own toilets.
  Now we are told that the military will build or rebuild 6,000 schools 
in Iraq and give free basic health care to any Iraqis who need it. We 
will stay in Iraq for many years, at great expense to U.S. citizens, 
because several large multinational companies will benefit from large 
contracts there. We will stay there because all the pressures and money 
and power and glory within the Department of Defense, the State 
Department, the National Security Council, and our intelligence 
agencies are to continue to do more and more in other countries.
  These people are not seen as world statesmen and men and women of 
action unless we get involved in every dispute around the world. They 
never debate or discuss the merits of all this; they just label all 
opponents of an interventionist foreign policy as isolationist. 
However, whenever anyone uses this term, they are simply resorting to 
mindless name-calling.
  Now I suppose we are going into the chaos in Liberia, as we have 
Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Lord knows where 
next.
  What we really need are more Calvin Coolidges, more people in 
government who believe in a humble foreign policy. None of these 
countries were any threat to us. Should we now change the name of the 
Defense Department to the Department of Foreign Aid or the Department 
of International Social Work?
  I believe in and have always supported a strong national defense, but 
I do not believe in massive foreign aid. Most of our foreign adventures 
are creating great resentment toward the U.S. around the world.
  The Iraqi people may have hated Saddam Hussein, but they do not want 
Americans or our puppets running their country either. They have 
humongous oil wealth. Let them rebuild their own country. The only 
Iraqis who want us to stay there are the ones we are paying or who 
believe they can get money from us in the future.
  Our first obligation should be to America citizens, and the lives of 
American soldiers should be precious to us. Let us bring our troops 
home before more and more of them are murdered. We can be friends with 
the Iraqi people without making our soldiers sitting ducks for Islamic 
terrorists.
  Mr. Speaker, let us leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

                          ____________________