[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18421-18422]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND POST-WAR IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as one of the cochairs of the 
Democratic Study Group on National Security, along with the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Schiff) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Israel), I am very delighted to stand on the floor this evening to talk 
about American foreign policy and post-war Iraq.
  I certainly want to extend appreciation to our leader, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for having the foresight and 
vision to establish our Democratic Study Group on National Security.
  I supported the President's decision to go to war against Iraq and 
remove Saddam Hussein from power. I am also pleased that this regime 
can no longer victimize the Iraqi people. The United States military 
has done very well, a superb job, and I am very proud of our soldiers, 
our sailors, our airmen, but we cannot let go of Iraq just yet.
  As the world's only remaining superpower, we must recommit ourselves 
to peace, diplomacy and nation building now that the war is winding 
down.
  The United States of America is a strong Nation, with the strongest 
military in the world, but with that force must exist a strong 
diplomatic strategy. The situation in Iraq teaches us that we cannot 
simply overwhelm a regime with force and then disengage from the area. 
If we do not back our strength of action with strength of diplomacy, 
then we will fail in our goal to provide a rebuilt, free democracy in 
Iraq.
  I am concerned that there is a lot more that still needs to be done 
to make Iraq a safe and secure country, more than the United States can 
achieve on its own. This task is so monumental that we must be open to 
accepting all types of assistance from other countries. Increased 
multilateralism reduces our financial burden, reduces our exposure of 
our troops, helps repair our international alliances and diffuses the 
international and regional criticisms that we are receiving about our 
presence in Iraq today.
  The United States currently has approximately 150,000 military 
personnel in Iraq, and between 12,000 and 15,000 allied forces are also 
in Iraq. In order to avoid the financial burden and criticism that the 
United States is an adversarial occupation force in Iraq, it is 
important to involve more international forces. And given the current 
level of deadly guerrilla attacks on our American soldiers, 34 American 
soldiers have died since the President declared major combat operations 
over on May 1, and the growing strength of Saddam Hussein's loyalists, 
it is very clear that this war is very far from being over.
  We need additional forces and particularly an international force of 
police officers and civilians that can keep the peace in Iraq so that 
rebuilding can take place. There can be no building in Iraq if Iraq is 
not secure and safe.
  We must involve the United Nations. We must involve NATO and other 
nations in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. And most importantly, as a 
fundamental prerequisite to economic redevelopment, the United States 
and the international community must reestablish Iraq's banking system. 
You cannot move to rebuild anything if your banking system is out of 
repair. We must create a uniform currency, and we must develop a plan 
for an electronic system of financial transactions that includes lines 
of credit, capital requirements and prudential oversight.
  In addition, Iraq needs that uniform currency. Because, right now, 
there are four different forms of currency being in operation in Iraq. 
An economy cannot be developed if there are four pieces of different 
moneys. We have got to have a medium of exchange and a store of value 
in order to revive its economy and in order to encourage foreign 
investors and, most importantly, to develop Iraqi-owned businesses.
  Furthermore, the United States and its allies need to help Iraq 
quickly increase its current oil production from 800,000 barrels per 
day as of now, of which 500,000 barrels per day are needed for domestic 
consumption, to increase to its pre-war production of 3 million barrels 
per day. It is vitally important that Iraq's oil industry be 
reestablished so that it can help pay to rebuild the country's 
infrastructure since it is the country's largest exporter and foreign 
currency earner, largest industry and one of their largest employers.
  All of this requires that the United States establish a long-term 
plan for our military presence in Iraq, a strong long-term diplomatic 
strategy in Iraq to involve more nations and a blueprint with specific 
benchmarks and timetables for turning over the reins to the Iraqi 
people as soon as it is practical.
  Often our parties, Democrat and Republican, we oftentimes divide on 
which is the more important component, foreign policy, military or 
diplomacy, and for some reason, too often it is assumed that to support 
one of these is to reject the other. I disagree. Diplomacy is nothing 
if not backed with strength and force. At the same time, strong force 
may end the immediate threat, but without diplomatic action such a 
victory will be short-lived and will create new instabilities.
  That is where we are right now in Iraq. Indeed, our military force 
has won the war, but we are weak in having a strong diplomatic presence 
that is credible in the region to bring about a lasting peace, curb the 
violence and the guerrilla warfare so that rebuilding can take place.
  We must have both. We must maintain a strong military to give weight 
to our words, both with our allies and with our enemies. And yet if the 
current post-war situation in Iraq teaches us anything, it is that 
force alone will not create stability or democracy. Diplomacy must be 
aggressively valued and pursued to maintain a lasting peace and to 
ensure our soldiers did not die in vain. Strong military and strong 
diplomacy must go hand in hand if we are to be successful in Iraq and 
successful with our foreign policy.

[[Page 18422]]



                          ____________________