    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1998, Book I)]
    [February 17, 1998]
    [Pages 231-235]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia
    February 17, 1998

        Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for your remarks and your leadership. Thank you,
    Secretary Cohen, for the superb job you
    have done here at the Pentagon and on this most recent, very difficult
    problem. Thank you, General Shelton, for
    being the right person at the right time. Thank you, General
    Ralston, and the members of the Joint
    Chiefs, General Zinni, Secretary
    Albright, Secretary Slater, DCI Tenet, Mr.
    Bowles, Mr. Berger. Senator Robb, thank you for
    being here, and Congressman Skelton, thank you
    very much, and for your years of service to America and your passionate
    patriotism, both of you, and to the members of our Armed Forces and
    others who work here to protect our national security.
        I have just received a very fine briefing from our military
    leadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf. Before I
    left the Pentagon I wanted to talk to you and all those whom you
    represent, the men and women of our military. You, your friends, and
    your colleagues are on the frontlines of this crisis in Iraq. I want you
    and I want the American people to hear directly from me what is at stake
    for America in the Persian Gulf; what we are doing to protect the peace,
    the security, the freedom we cherish; why we have taken the position we
    have taken.
        I was thinking, as I sat up here on the platform, of the slogan that
    the First Lady gave me for her project on the millennium, which was
    ``Remembering the past, and imagining the future.'' Now, for that
    project, that means preserving the Star-Spangled Banner and the
    Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

    [[Page 232]]

    and the Bill of Rights, and it means making an unprecedented commitment
    to medical research and to get the best of the new technology. But
    that's not a bad slogan for us when we deal with more sober, more
    difficult, more dangerous matters.
        Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would
    argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the
    past nor imagined the future. So, first, let's just take a step back and
    consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are
    entering.
        This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower
    confrontation has ended on every continent; democracy is securing for
    more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take
    for granted. Bit by bit, the information age is chipping away at the
    barriers, economic, political, and social, that once kept people locked
    in and freedom and prosperity locked out.
        But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room
    know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a
    result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of
    terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals. We
    have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They
    feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take
    advantage of the freer movement of people, information, and ideas. And
    they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of
    nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver
    them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
        There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's
    Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his
    people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of
    us.
        I want the American people to understand, first, the past: How did
    this crisis come about? And I want them to understand what we must do to
    protect the national interest and, indeed, the interest of all freedom-
    loving people in the world.
        Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf war, the
    United Nations demanded--not the United States, the United Nations
    demanded--and Saddam Hussein agreed to
    declare within 15 days--this is way back in 1991--within 15 days his
    nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver
    them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.
        The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained
    international experts, called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good
    on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm.
    Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and
    he had used it, not once but many times. In a decade-long war with Iran,
    he used chemical weapons against combatants, against civilians, against
    a foreign adversary, and even against his own people. And during the
    Gulf war, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel, and
    Bahrain.
        Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of
    the Gulf war, Saddam has spent the better
    part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment.
    Consider just some of the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false declarations
    about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf war.
    When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those
    declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq
    revised its nuclear declarations 4 times within just 14 months, and it
    has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of
    which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
        In 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-
    law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
    program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to
    conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then
    and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in
    significant quantities and weapons stocks. Previously it had vehemently
    denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-
    in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
        Now, listen to this. What did it admit? It admitted, among other
    things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000
    gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax;
    25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might
    say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly
    understated its production. As if we needed further confirmation, you
    all know what happened to his son-in-law when
    he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.
        Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined
    and undercut

    [[Page 233]]

    UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
    monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
    suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
    people were there observing it and have the pictures to prove it.
        Despite Iraq's deceptions UNSCOM has, nevertheless, done a
    remarkable job. Its inspectors, the eyes and ears of the civilized
    world, have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction
    capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf war. This includes nearly
    40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons
    agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for
    chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons
    facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly
    agents.
        Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to
    rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their
    ambition by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and
    declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits,
    including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres
    large. By comparison--when you hear all this business about
    ``Presidential sites reflect our sovereignty; why do you want to come
    into a residence?''--the White House complex is 18 acres, so you'll have
    some feel for this. One of these Presidential sites is about the size of
    Washington, DC. That's about--how many acres did you tell me it was--
    40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate
    personal matters involved.
        It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole
    history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of
    his capacity to produce weapons of mass
    destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feedstocks necessary
    to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has
    stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-
    type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production
    program and build many, many more weapons.
        Now, against that background, let us remember the past, here. It is
    against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made
    clear our preference for a diplomatic solution. The inspection system
    works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies,
    stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who
    have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout
    the world. It has worked.
        That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what
    has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf war,
    to do what should have been done within 15 days--within 15 days of the
    agreement at the end of the Gulf war--if we can find a diplomatic way to
    do that, that is by far our preference. But to be a genuine solution and
    not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic
    solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple
    standard: Iraq must agree, and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to
    these sites, anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or
    diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has
    put in place.
        Now, those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what
    he agreed to at the end of the Gulf war. The Security Council many times
    since has reiterated this standard. If he
    accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to
    evade his obligation through more tactics of delay and deception, he,
    and he alone, will be to blame for the consequences.
        I ask all of you to remember the record here: what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf
    war, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in '95, what
    the inspectors have done against all odds.
        We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not
    include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who
    have integrity and proven competence in the inspection business. That
    should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I
    have been fighting for it so hard. That's why the United States should
    insist upon it.
        Now let's imagine the future. What if he
    fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third
    route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of
    weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the
    sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
    Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its
    will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to
    rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I
    guarantee

    [[Page 234]]

    you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really
    worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.
        Now, we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf
    and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would
    not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, of Kuwait, Bahrain,
    the GCC States, and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to
    provide forces, bases, or logistical support, including the United
    Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and The Netherlands,
    Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland,
    Australia, New Zealand, and our friends and neighbors in Canada. That
    list is growing, not because anyone wants military action but because
    there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolution
    should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved,
    because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the
    future will be, depending on what we do now.
        If Saddam rejects peace and we have to
    use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the
    threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to
    seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors. I am quite
    confident from the briefing I have just received from our military
    leaders that we can achieve the objectives and secure our vital
    strategic interests.
        Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons
    of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the
    ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his
    neighbors. And he will know that the international community continues
    to have the will to act if and when he threatens again.
        Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities
    with all the means at our disposal. If he
    seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to
    strike him again. The economic sanctions will remain in place until
    Saddam complies fully with all U.N. resolutions.
        Consider this: Already these sanctions have denied him $110 billion. Imagine how much stronger his armed
    forces would be today, how many more weapons of mass destruction
    operations he would have hidden around the country if he had been able
    to spend even a small fraction of that amount for a military rebuilding.
        We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southern suburbs
    of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq, making it more
    difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again or threaten the Kurds in
    the north.
        Now, let me say to all of you here, as all of you know, the
    weightiest decision any President ever has to make is to send our troops
    into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes
    it's the only answer.
        You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained fighting
    force in the world. And should it prove necessary for me to exercise the
    option of force, your commanders will do everything they can to protect
    the safety of all the men and women under their command. No military
    action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon
    in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.
        Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires
    constant vigilance. We have seen that constant vigilance pays off, but
    it requires constant vigilance. Since the Gulf war we have pushed back
    every time Saddam has posed a threat. When Baghdad plotted to
    assassinate former President Bush, we struck
    hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters. When Saddam threatened another
    invasion by massing his troops in Kuwait, along the Kuwaiti border in
    1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our ships, our planes, and
    Saddam backed down. When Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in northern
    Iraq, we broadened our control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly
    zone.
        But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons
    inspections system itself. Yes, he has tried
    to thwart it in every conceivable way. But the discipline,
    determination, the year-in, year-out effort of these weapons inspectors
    is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job.
        Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act. But Saddam
    Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow,
    simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made
    a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to
    give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago, now. One way or
    the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own
    promise.
        Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what
    we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about
    the 21st. In this century we learned through harsh experience

    [[Page 235]]

    that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness,
    determination, and, when necessary, action. In the next century, the
    community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq
    poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use
    them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized
    criminals, who travel the world among us unnoticed.
        If we fail to respond today, Saddam and
    all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow
    by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a
    clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear
    evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program. But if we act as one,
    we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-
    be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the
    wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new
    era.
        That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I
    ask our allies to imagine. If we look at the past and imagine that
    future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a
    chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this and, if not, God willing,
    a chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President spoke at 12:37 p.m. in the auditorium. In his
    remarks, he referred to Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, USMC, commander in chief,
    U.S. Central Command; and President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.