[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[House]
[Page 4476]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 CONSERVATIVES AGAINST A WAR WITH IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, most people do not realize how many 
conservatives are against going to war in Iraq.
  A strong majority of nationally syndicated conservative columnists 
have come out against this war. Just three of the many, many examples I 
could give include the following:
  Charlie Reese, a staunch conservative, who was elected a couple of 
years ago as the favorite columnist of C-SPAN viewers, wrote that a 
U.S. attack on Iraq ``is a prescription for the decline and fall of the 
American empire.''
  Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the highest-ranking Treasury 
Department officials under President Reagan and now a nationally 
syndicated conservative columnist, wrote: ``An invasion of Iraq is 
likely the most thoughtless action in modern history.''
  James Webb, a hero of Vietnam and President Reagan's Secretary of the 
Navy, wrote: ``The issue before us is not whether the United States 
should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a Nation are 
prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 
years.''
  It is a traditional conservative position, Mr. Speaker, to be against 
huge deficit spending.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a very short war, 
followed by a 5-year occupation of Iraq, would cost the U.S. $272 
billion, this on top of an estimated $350 billion deficit for the 
coming fiscal year.
  It is a traditional conservative position to be against the U.S. 
being the policeman of the world. That is exactly what we will be doing 
if we go to war in Iraq.
  It is a traditional conservative position to be against world 
government, because conservatives believe that government is less 
wasteful and arrogant when it is small and closer to the people.
  It is a traditional conservative position to be critical of, 
skeptical about, or even opposed to the very wasteful, corrupt United 
Nations; yet the primary justification for this war, what we hear over 
and over again, is that Iraq has violated 16 U.N. resolutions. Well, 
other nations have violated U.N. resolutions; yet we have not 
threatened war against them.
  It is a traditional conservative position to believe it is unfair to 
U.S. taxpayers and our military to put almost the entire burden of 
enforcing U.N. resolutions on the U.S.; yet that is exactly what will 
happen in a war against Iraq. In fact, it is already happening, because 
even if Hussein backs down now, it will have cost us billions of 
dollars in war preparations and moving so many of our troops, planes, 
ships and equipment to the Middle East.
  It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge foreign 
aid, which has been almost a complete failure for many years now. Talk 
about huge foreign aid, Turkey, according to reports, is demanding 26 
to $32 billion; Israel wants 12 to $15 billion; Egypt, Jordan, Saudi 
Arabia want additional aid in unspecified amounts.
  Almost every country that is supporting the U.S. in this war wants 
something in return. The cost of all these requests have not been added 
in to most of the war costs calculations. All this to fight a bad man 
who has a total military budget of about $1.4 billion, less than three-
tenths of 1 percent of ours.
  The White House said Hussein has less than 40 percent of the weaponry 
and manpower that he had at the time of the first Gulf War. One analyst 
estimated only about 20 percent.
  His troops surrendered then to camera crews or even in one case to an 
empty tank. Hussein has been weakened further by years of bombing and 
economic sanctions and embargoes. He is an evil man, but he is no 
threat to us; and if this war comes about, it will probably be one of 
the shortest and certainly one of the most lopsided wars in history.
  Our own CIA put out a report just a few days before our war 
resolution vote saying that Hussein was so weak economically and 
militarily he was really not capable of attacking anyone unless forced 
into it. He really controls very little outside the city of Baghdad.
  The Washington Post 2 days ago had a column which said, ``The war in 
Iraq, likely in the next few weeks, is not expected to last long, given 
the overwhelming U.S. fire power to be arrayed against the Iraqis. But 
the trickier job may be in the aftermath.''
  Fortune Magazine said, ``Iraq, we win. What then? 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.''
  Not only have most conservative columnists come out strongly against 
this war, but also at least four conservative magazines and two 
conservative think tanks.
  One conservative Republican member of the other body said last week 
that the ``rush to war in Iraq could backfire'' and asked, ``We are 
wrecking coalitions, relationships and alliances so we can get a 2-week 
start on going to war alone?''
  The Atlantic Monthly magazine said we would spend so much money in 
Iraq we might as well make it the 51st State. I believe most 
conservatives would rather that money be spent here.
  It is a traditional conservative position to be in favor of a strong 
national defense, not one that turns our soldiers into international 
social workers, and to believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy, 
rather than in globalism or internationalism. We should be friends with 
all nations, but we will weaken our own Nation, maybe irreversibly, 
unless we follow the more humble foreign policy the President advocated 
in his campaign.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is very much against every conservative 
tradition to support preemptive war. Another member of the other body, 
the Senator from West Virginia, not a conservative but certainly one 
with great knowledge of and respect for history and tradition, said 
recently, ``This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This 
upcoming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. 
foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of 
the world.''
  This nation is about to embark upon the first test of the 
revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an 
unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption--the idea that the United 
States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not 
imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future--is a 
radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense.''
  The columnist William Raspberry, again not a conservative but one who 
sometimes takes conservative positions, wrote this week these works: 
``Why so fast. Because Hussein will stall the same way he's been 
stalling for a dozen years. A dozen years, by the way, during which he 
has attacked no one, gassed no one, launched terror attacks on no one. 
Tell me its because of American pressure that he has stayed his hand, 
and I say great. Isn't that better than a U.S.-launched war guaranteed 
to engender massive slaughter and spread terrorism?''
  Throughout these remarks, I have said not one word critical of the 
President or any of his advisors or anyone on the other side of this 
issue.
  I especially have not and will not criticize the fine men and women 
in our Nation's armed forces. They are simply following orders and 
attempting to serve this country in an honorable way.
  Conservatives are generally not the types who participate in street 
demonstrations, especially ones led by people who say mean-spirited 
things about our President. But I do sincerely believe the true 
conservative position, the traditional conservative position is against 
this war.

                          ____________________