[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 6288-6289]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   EDITORIAL BY LT. COL. CRAIG MAYER

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BILL SHUSTER

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 13, 2003

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' 
attention an editorial written by Lieutenant Colonel Craig Mayer (ret.) 
of Bedford, Pennsylvania. Lt. Col. Mayer is a former U.S. Department of 
Defense attache and served as a member of the United States Marines 
during the Vietnam War. On March 7, 2003 Colonel Mayer wrote an 
eloquent editorial that describes not only his reflections of war, but 
also made a compelling case in support of military action against 
Saddam Hussein. I urge my colleagues to keep the following article in 
mind as the debate concerning Iraq continues;

       When I think of America going to war with Iraq, what comes 
     to mind first is the distinct, sickeningly sweet smell and 
     the feel of dark, sticky blood as I helped drag a horribly 
     wounded young Marine to a medevac helicopter. And the memory 
     of picking up the young Marine's boot--most of his lower leg 
     still in it--and tossing it into the helicopter. It's the 
     odor of gunpowder and sweat, screams of agony, a green jungle 
     haze, the confusing noise of whirling helicopter blades, Viet 
     Cong machine gun fire, and gasping, wide-eyed men.
       I suffer no illusions about the real costs of war and have 
     no impulse to go fight again or send others into the hellish 
     experience I survived in Vietnam.
       Why then should we indulge this obscenity again with Iraq? 
     What is at stake? And is it worth the sacrifice?
       The debate on the impending war is more, much more, about 
     power and competing worldviews--within America and within the 
     community of nations--than it is or ever was about Saddam's 
     threats and misadventures. The issue is not really about 
     inspections, adequate justification, sham cooperation, or any 
     sincere belief that Saddam Hussein will ever willingly 
     disarm, the debate is about the constraint of American power.
       Iraq is the stage for a test of those worldviews.
       One view seeks to avoid the use of military power to bring 
     about the rule of law and instead relies on persuasion, 
     negotiation, cooperation, and international institutions. It 
     rationalizes and tolerates threats because its proponents 
     really can't do anything about them. This view is borne of 
     decades of global security and prosperity provided by the 
     United States. It is a view grounded in strategic weakness.
       The competing view, the American power view, looks to 
     military power along with the means and willingness to use it 
     as essential for a state of security to create peaceful 
     solutions and the rule of law to govern and grow. It sees 
     international forums and processes as less than reliable. It 
     perceives risks differently and is less willing to tolerate 
     threats because it can do something about them. It is a 
     position grounded in strategic strength.
       These opposing views are now colliding. Both views desire 
     the rule of law and peaceful solutions to international 
     problems, but their means are at odds.
       Those nations and people of the power adverse view will 
     encounter and confront us simply because we are the only 
     power on the world stage with the means to shape and effect 
     global security. Only by constraining American power can they 
     gain a relative advantage and advance or validate their view. 
     Since the end of World War II, Europe and much of the rest of 
     the world has depended on and has been responsive to American 
     power and our ability to globally project that power--be it 
     in economic or military terms. Our power is now enormous and 
     unprecedented in world history.
       Adherents of the power adverse view, most notably France, 
     Germany, and less so Russia, have chosen the Iraq crisis and 
     the forums of the U.N. Security Council and NATO to confront 
     us. We should not be misled by their public assertions or how 
     they or their supporters would like to frame the 
     international debate in the important days ahead. Behind all 
     their coming challenges to intelligence information, appeals 
     for peace, attempts at redefining compliance, pleas for 
     delays, excuses for Iraqi resistance, and bleats about 
     smoking guns is the objective of constraining American 
     power--irrespective of any concerns about Iraq. This is the 
     central and fundamental objective.
       There is overwhelming justification for the coerced 
     disarmament of Iraq--the justification threshold was passed 
     years ago.
       No greater damage could be done to the maintenance of a 
     stable world order and global security than to succumb to the 
     instincts and wants of those confronting us. The stakes in 
     this encounter are quite high--perhaps more so than at 
     anytime in the past half century. If the power adverse 
     proponents prevail, it will weaken their security and 
     severely undermine the effectiveness of the U.N. Security 
     Council and NATO--paradoxically, the very institutions they 
     hope to rely on. If they prevail, global security decisions 
     will be thrown into forums and processes that promise little 
     more than delay, equivocation, indecision, and paralysis. 
     Something the world cannot afford in the face of immediate 
     threats and mounting dangers. At the same time, France, 
     Germany, and Russia are not our enemies--they are simply 
     wrong. It is not time for their view to prevail and if 
     history is a teacher that time will probably never come.
       The young Marine that I helped drag to a helicopter 34 
     years ago died a few hours after he was wounded. Our company 
     commander wrote a letter to his parents. The family was 
     presented a purple heart and their son's name was chiseled 
     into the marble monument in Washington.
       In the impending war dying is at stake, suffering is at 
     stake, and misery for loved ones left behind is at stake. It 
     is obscene. But the harsh reality is that we live in an 
     anarchic world of walls and the security and defense of a 
     progressive, stable world order depends on military might and 
     this is one of the roles we play. I know that these words 
     provide little solace for the parents of a young Marine we 
     lost years ago. I know that they will not fill the voids in 
     our lives we now feel and that might be created in the days 
     and weeks ahead. I only hope that they might help.
       If I thought the impending War with Iraq was a contemporary 
     Vietnam, an ill-conceived and misunderstood venture, I would 
     be one of the first to object. It isn't, and I do not object.

[[Page 6289]]



                          ____________________