An Address By Senator Patrick Leahy
On Iraq
Senate Floor
Thursday, Sept. 26, 2002

Mr. President, I am fortunate to represent a state whose citizens have long been involved in international affairs.  Whether through military or diplomatic service, volunteering for the Peace Corps, studying abroad, or because we live on a great international border, Vermonters have strong views about these issues.

I was in Vermont this past weekend, and as always I had the opportunity to speak to many Vermonters from all walks of life.  I can say, beyond any doubt, that Vermonters across the political spectrum are very concerned about our policy toward Iraq. 

They are worried that we are shifting our focus away from ending the violence in the Middle East, eliminating al Qaeda, and rebuilding Afghanistan even though that herculean task has barely begun.

The President has sent to Congress a proposed resolution for the use of military force against Iraq.  It would permit the President to take any action whatsoever to "defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region." 

While I hope this is the beginning of a consultative, bipartisan process to produce a sensible resolution and to act on it at the appropriate time, the current proposal is an extraordinarily over-broad, open-ended resolution that would authorize the President to send American troops not only into war against Iraq, but also against any nation in the Gulf or Middle East region, however one defines it. 

Mr. President, declaring war, or providing the authority to wage war, is the single most important responsibility given to Congress under the Constitution.  As history has shown, wars inevitably have unforeseen, terrible consequences, especially for innocent civilians.  

Blank-check resolutions, such as the one the President proposes, can likewise be misinterpreted or used in ways that we do not intend or expect.  It has happened before, in ways that many people, including Members of Congress, came to regret.  That is why a thorough debate is so necessary.  And that is also why this Vermonter will not vote for a blank check for this President or any President.  My conscience and the Constitution do not allow that.

The timing of the debate is also important.  Congress is being asked to send Americans into battle, even though diplomatic efforts have not yet been exhausted.  Nor do we have a complete assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies of the threat that Iraq poses to the United States.

I will have more to say when the debate on the resolution occurs.  But I do want to take a few minutes to share some initial thoughts as we begin to consider this difficult question.

The question we face is not whether Saddam Hussein is a menace to his people, to his neighbors and to our national security interests.  The Iraqi regime has already invaded Iran and Kuwait, gassed members of its own population, and repeatedly flouted international conventions against armed aggression.  It is clear that Iraq has tried to develop a range of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, with which Iraq might threaten the entire Gulf region. 

I would like to see Saddam Hussein gone as much as anyone.  But the question is how immediate is this threat and what is the best way to deal with it, without undercutting our principal goal of protecting the American people from terrorism, promoting peace in the Middle East, and other important U.S. national security priorities?

Some Administration officials have suggested that to ask questions about going to war in Iraq is somehow unpatriotic, or indicative of a lack of concern about national security.  That is nothing more than election year partisan politics at its worst.  These questions are being asked by Americans in every state of the Union.  

Until recently our focus has been, rightly so, on destroying al Qaeda and other terrorist networks.  While that challenge has already cost billions of dollars and continues to occupy the attention and resources of the Department of Defense and the U.S. intelligence community, the Administration has suddenly shifted gears and is now rushing headlong toward war with Iraq.

Some have argued that Congress must act now to strengthen the President’s hand as the Administration negotiates at the United Nations. 

But what we would really be saying is that regardless of what the Security Council does, we have already decided to go our own way.  I contrast that with the situation in 1990 when the United States successfully assembled a broad international coalition to fight the Gulf War.  The Congress passed a resolution only after the UN acted.

President Bush deserves credit for focusing the world's attention on international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.  I have said this over and over again.  But the process that has brought us to the brink of preparing for war with Iraq has been notable for its confusion.

The statements of Administration officials have been fraught with inconsistencies.  They claim to speak for the American people, but average Americans are urging the Administration to proceed cautiously on Iraq and to work with the United Nations and the Congress.  Our allies are confused and angry about the way this has been handled.  Our friends in the Middle East are fearful of what lies ahead.

Fortunately, the President heeded calls to go to the United Nations, and in his speech to the General Assembly he described in great detail Saddam Hussein’s long history of deception and defiance of UN resolutions.  I commended that speech.  I am also pleased that it focused on enforcing those resolutions, especially concerning weapons of mass destruction. 

But the American people need to hear more than generalized accusations and threatening ultimatums.  They need to know the scope and urgency of the problem, Saddam's current and future capabilities, the options for solving the problem, and the short and long-term implications of each course of action, including the very real dangers of unintended consequences. 

I agree with the President when he says that Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted and that disarming Iraq is the goal.   But the first way to try to accomplish this is not through precipitous, unilateral military action.  Rather, it is by building an alliance and working  through the United Nations.  

Earlier this week, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, warned the Administration of the dangers of attacking Iraq without the backing of the United Nations:

"We are a global nation with global interests, and undermining the credibility of the United Nations does very little to help provide stability and security and safety to the rest of the world, where we have to operate for economic reasons and political reasons."

Working through the United Nations to readmit the weapons inspectors could be effective in disarming Iraq.  Rolf Ekeus, the former executive chairman of UNSCOM, has stated:

"International weapons inspectors, if properly backed up by international force, can unearth Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs.  If we believe that Iraq would be much less of a threat without such weapons, the obvious thing is to focus on getting rid of the weapons.  Doing that through an inspection team is not only the most effective way, but would cost less in lives and destruction than an invasion."  

A study by the Carnegie Endowment, co-authored by former U.S. military and United Nations officials, supports this view:  "With sufficient human and technological resources, time, and political support, inspections can reduce Iraq’s [weapons of mass destruction] threat, if not to zero, to a negligible level."

There are distinct advantages to this approach.  For one, if Iraq again refuses to comply with UN demands, there will be a much stronger case for more forceful action. 

It would also help mitigate potential damage to our relations with other nations whose support we need to achieve other important U.S. goals, such as capturing terrorists or promoting peace in the Middle East.

Diplomacy is often tedious.  It does not usually make the headlines or the evening news, and much has been made of our past diplomatic failures.  But history has shown over and over that diplomacy can not only protect our national interests, it can also enhance the effectiveness of military force when force becomes necessary.

Many experts believe that, despite deception by the Iraqis, the UN inspection process destroyed much of the Iraqi weapons program, and new inspections could succeed in substantially disarming Saddam.  However, the UN regime broke down when Saddam Hussein started blocking the inspections and the Security Council was divided on how to respond. 

I support the unconditional return of inspectors backed up by an international military force.  But, the world must not repeat the mistakes of 1998.  We have already seen some troubling signs of diplomatic double talk from the Iraqis, particularly on the issue of unimpeded access for the inspectors.  The international community cannot tolerate deception and defiance on the part of the Iraqis, and  Secretary Powell is right to push for a new UN resolution.

Other members of the Security Council should join United States and British efforts to craft a strong new resolution with a deadline for Iraqi compliance.  The UN has a responsibility to enforce its demands.  If the UN does not act to ensure that the inspection regime is effectively structured, we will end up back where we were in 1998.  Saddam will play the same cat and mouse game, the UN will look toothless, and we will not be able to destroy the Iraqi weapons program. 

We need a strengthened inspection regime that has pre-existing authority from the Security Council to deploy military force to back up the inspectors if there is resistance from Iraq.  I hope that the Administration works with the United Nations, not so much the other way around, to make this happen.

If Iraq resists the inspections, and the President decides to use military force, then the procedure is clear.  He can seek a declaration of war from the Congress, and the Congress can vote.   But voting on such a resolution at this time would be premature.

A decision to invade Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein should be based on a complete assessment of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and the threat Iraq poses to the United States.  What is the evidence – as opposed to assertions and assumptions – that Iraq is close to acquiring a nuclear weapon?  What is the evidence that Iraq is capable of launching, or has any intention of launching, an attack against us or one of our allies? 

And there are more questions that are as yet unanswered.  What is the evidence that Saddam Hussein wants to commit suicide, which such an attack would guarantee?  Why is containment, a strategy which kept the Soviet Union with its thousands of nuclear warheads and chemical and biological weapons at bay for 40 years, not valid for Saddam Hussein, a cold, calculating tyrant who cares above all about staying in power?

I am not sure how these questions can be answered without an updated National Intelligence Estimate.  As the Washington Post has reported, there are conflicting views within the intelligence community on Iraq, and without this estimate, which pulls together the different assessments by various parts of the intelligence community, Congress is being asked to give a blank check without all of the facts.  I am not going to write a blank check under any circumstances and I am certainly not going to do it with less than all of the facts.

We also must assess whether an attack could spin out of control and draw the entire Middle East into war.  As Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged, an Iraqi attack on Israel could spark a deadly spiral of escalation in which Israeli retaliation prompts responses from other Arab states.  Israel has a right of self-defense, and Prime Minister Sharon has said that Israel would retaliate.  At the very least, it would further inflame Arab populations whose governments are key to bringing lasting peace to the Middle East and reducing the breeding grounds for extremist Islamic fundamentalism and international terrorism.  Some of those breeding grounds are within the borders of some of our closest friends in the region and we should not lose sight of that.

We also must fully assess the costs of a war.  The Gulf War cost tens of billions of dollars, but ultimately other nations helped to defray those costs.  The President’s Economic Adviser said that this war could cost as much as two hundred billion dollars, and that assumes it does not spread beyond Iraq. 

As the combat in Afghanistan showed, once again, we have the finest fighting forces in the world.  We can be confident that we would win a war with Iraq, but there would be American lives lost, especially if Iraq lures U.S. troops into urban combat. 

We have to remember that it is one thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming engulfed by factional fighting.  If these nations cannot successfully rebuild, then they will once again become havens for terrorists.

The President would need to show that a post-Saddam Iraq would not be a continual source of instability and conflict in the region.  While Iraq has a strong civil society that might be able to become a democracy, in the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq another dictator could rise to the top or the country could splinter into ethnic or religious conflict.  

To ensure that this does not happen, does the Administration foresee basing thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq after the war, and if so, for how many years and for how many billions of dollars at a time when the U.S. economy is weakening, the Federal deficit is growing, and poverty is increasing here at home? 

Is the Administration committed to investing the resources it is going to take to rebuild Iraq, even when we are falling short of what is needed in Afghanistan?

In Afghanistan, the Taliban was vanquished with a minimum of U.S. casualties, but destroying al Qaeda, which is the primary goal of our efforts in Afghanistan, is proving far more difficult.  We are told that while al Qaeda’s leadership has been badly disrupted, its members have dispersed widely.  Although there is a growing belief that Osama bin Laden is dead, we have no proof.

In addition, the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan is critical.  There are thousands of homeless Afghans and a real threat of widespread hunger or famine this winter.  There are families who lost loved ones or their homes were destroyed in the violence perpetrated by the Taliban, years of civil war, or from mistakes made during military operations by U.S. and coalition forces.

Yet the Administration, despite calls by President Bush for a Marshall Plan, did not ask for a single cent for Afghanistan for fiscal year 2003.  In addition, $94 million for humanitarian, refugee, and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan, which Congress added in the Supplemental Appropriations Bill, was not deemed an emergency by the President. 

Some relief organizations have already been told that they may have to shut down programs for lack of funds.  This is happening in a country that so desperately needs the most basic staples such as water, education and medical help.  Afghans who have returned to their homes from outside the country may become refugees once again.

Many other nations have yet to fulfill pledges of assistance to Afghanistan, but if the President is serious about a Marshall Plan, and I believe he is right, then we need to do much more to help rebuild that country. 

Yet, as we continue to face difficult challenges in Afghanistan and hunting down members of al Qaeda, not to mention a number of challenges here at home such as the economy, we are suddenly being thrust into a debate about Iraq.  It is a debate that will have lasting consequences for our standing in the world as a country that recognizes the importance of multilateral solutions to global problems and that respects international law.

General Wesley Clark, who headed the successful U.S. and NATO military campaign in Kosovo, recently addressed this problem directly, when he wrote:

"The longer this war [on terrorism] goes on - and by all accounts, it will go on for years - the more our success will depend on the willing cooperation and active participation of our allies to root out terrorist cells in Europe and Asia, to cut off funding and support of terrorists and to deal with Saddam Hussein and other threats.  We are far more likely to gain the support we need by working through international institutions than outside of them."

Mr. President, the world cannot ignore Saddam Hussein.  I can envision circumstances which would cause me to support the use of force against Iraq, if we cannot obtain unimpeded access for UN inspectors or the United States is threatened with imminent harm.

But like many Vermonters, based on what I know today, I believe that in order to solve this problem without potentially creating more enemies over the long run, we must act deliberately, not precipitously. 

The President has taken the first step, by seeking support from the United Nations.  Let us give that process time.  If it fails, then we can cross that bridge when we come to it. 

But I am reminded of my first year as a United States Senator.   The year was 1975, and there were still 60 or 70 Senators here who had voted for the Tonkin Gulf resolution a decade earlier.  That vote was 88-2, and many of those Senators, Democrats and Republicans, spoke of that vote as the greatest mistake of their careers. 

That resolution was adopted hastily after reports of a minor incident which may, in fact, not have occurred at all.  It was interpreted by both the Johnson and Nixon Administrations as carte blanche to wage war in Vietnam for over a decade, ultimately involving over half a million American troops and resulting in the deaths of over 58,000 Americans.

I am not suggesting that the Administration is trying to deceive Congress or the American people, and I recognize that the situation in Iraq today is very different from Vietnam in 1964.  But we learned some painful and important lessons back then.  And one that is as relevant today as it was 38 years ago, is that the Senate should never give up its Constitutional rights, responsibilities, and authority to the Executive Branch.  It should never shrink from its Constitutional responsibilities, especially when the lives of American servicemen and women are at stake. 

So Mr. President, when we consider the resolution on Iraq, I hope we will remember those lessons, because under no circumstances should the Congress pass a blank check and let the Administration fill in the amount later.  The Constitution does not allow that, and I will not do that.

# # # # #