Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy On The Senate Floor Concerning
The Cost Of War With Iraq
March 3, 2003

Mr. President, on February 26, we listened to the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who pointed out with characteristic clarity and eloquence the President’s failure to request a single dime in his Fiscal Year 2004 budget, which he sent to Congress just weeks ago, to finance a war with Iraq. 

And as I listened to the Senator’s remarks, I could not help but be struck, again, about the cavalier and dismissive way that this Administration has dealt not only with our allies and friends on the issue of disarming Iraq, but also with the Congress and the American people.

Essentially, their attitude has been, “we don’t need you, we don’t have to tell you, but you had better support us.”  And we have seen how Administration officials have been globe trotting to entice – in some cases offering billions of dollars and even trade concessions to the disadvantage of American workers – other governments to support a war against Iraq.  Meanwhile, the Administration resists all efforts to adequately assist first responders here at home who are on the front lines of our homeland security.  

Last week, even the President acknowledged that the huge Omnibus Appropriations Act he signed two weeks ago did not include sufficient funds for local and state governments to protect their citizens against acts of terrorism – something that Senator Byrd, I and others had been saying for months.

Secretary Rumsfeld’s response to questions about the cost of a war against Iraq, is that it is “unknowable.”  Senator Byrd mentioned this last week.  Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz has told the Congress the same thing.

Of course, no one can predict with certainty how long a war will last, or precisely what it would cost, not to mention the potentially immense costs of caring for an estimated two million refugees and rebuilding Iraq. 

But the Secretary’s response is both convenient and totally unacceptable.  The American people should not be asked to send their sons and daughters into battle without even a rudimentary understanding of what the potential costs are, both in dollars and in American lives. 

None of us expects the Pentagon to calculate these costs with precision.  But there is no doubt that a war and its aftermath would cost tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars, as the President’s former economic adviser predicted. 

In fact, the cost of a war, at least one in which Saddam Hussein’s army is quickly defeated as the Administration optimistically anticipates, has been estimated by the Administration.

So what was to prevent the President from at least requesting the best case scenario – somewhere between $60 and 95 billion at last count – in his Fiscal Year 2004 budget? 

There is only one explanation.  The President did not want the American people to ask whether, in the midst of a recession with no end in sight, with millions of jobs already lost and more Americans becoming unemployed every week, we can afford to spend tens or hundreds of billions of dollars on a war that fully half of the American people do not support.

Mr. President, I want to see Saddam Hussein disarmed as much as anyone.  His despotic rein, and his obsession with acquiring weapons of mass destruction while his people suffer, has been a disaster for his country and for Iraq’s neighbors.

But if you look back over the past several months, this Administration’s handling of the Iraq issue has been notable for its doublespeak, its secrecy, and its arrogance.  One day they are dismissing the United Nations as irrelevant, and the next day they are either making threats or making billion dollar deals with allies or members of the Security Council to win their support for a resolution authorizing the use of force. 

Depending on who the messenger is and whether they are speaking publicly or behind closed doors, the President first said the goal was regime change, then disarmament, and now both but that one cannot occur without the other. 

The President has told the American people that he has not made a decision to attack Iraq, yet his advisers are telling the rest of the world that the decision has been made and the Security Council doesn’t matter because we are going ahead regardless.

This is the Administration’s attitude even while some of our closest allies work to explore alternative options that could possibly avoid war.  The Administration’s rhetoric and actions have damaged key alliances and weakened our ability to work with our allies and friends not only to disarm Iraq, but to solve many other global problems.  The Administration’s approach has recklessly squandered the reservoir of goodwill our nation had around the world in the aftermath of September 11.

And how will they pay for this war?  Not by requesting the funds in the budget.  Of course not.  They will pay for it with red ink, by simply cranking up the printing presses and adding to the deficit.  Another hundred billion, what’s the difference?  That is the way they talk.  And these are some of the same people who only a few years ago were rallying behind a proposed constitutional amendment to balance the budget. 

This is the same President who, at the time he took office, inherited a balanced budget.  It would be laughable for its hypocrisy if we were not talking about American lives and the lives of innocent Iraqis.

It is possible that the President’s advisers will be proven right, and that a war will be over in a matter of weeks.  That the Iraqi army will crumble like a house of cards.  That Saddam Hussein will not blow up his oil wells and refineries.  That he will not use chemical or biological weapons.  That our troops will not become bogged down in hand-to-hand urban combat.  That there will be few Iraqi civilians killed.  That predictions of massive unrest throughout the Muslim world in protest of a U.S. military invasion of Iraq, and increases in the number of terrorist attacks against Americans, will be proven groundless.  That the ethnic and religious factions within Iraq, some of which hate each other, will put aside their differences and join together to build a representative, democratic government.  And that the President’s grand vision – about which we have no details – to democratize the entire Middle East, will be off to a successful start. 

Let us hope so.  But it is also possible that any one of these dire predictions could come true, and any one of them could be disastrous for our soldiers, for innocent civilians, for the U.S. economy, for our national interests abroad, for the Middle East, or for the world. 

Wars are unpredictable, and the real costs of a war against Iraq may not be known until long after this President’s term is over.  Who knew, back in 1991, that thousands of Gulf War veterans would suffer from unexplained, debilitating medical problems years after the war ended and that many would never be able to work again?  Who can say that this war will not be the spark that ignites more terrorism against the United States, perhaps not this year, or even next year, but in three years?  By that time, it will be too late.

We must think about these things, even if the President would rather not talk about them.  We have a duty to ask what are the Administration’s real motivations for this war.  Is it to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction?  If so, why not give the UN inspectors the time they need and a plan for enforcing disarmament?  Is it to promote democracy in Iraq?  If so, why not begin with Kuwait, which we liberated a decade ago and which remains a monarchy where women still cannot even vote?

We have a duty to ask these questions, and to warn the American people of the risks, even if the President will not.  And we must do everything we can to be sure that if war comes, it is supported by the broadest possible coalition.  

I want to commend the senior Senator from West Virginia for his remarks last week, and for the other statements he has made on this issue.  He has asked the questions that need to be asked, and that the Administration needs to answer, before this country goes to war. 

# # # # #