The Politicization of the Debate on Iraq
t r u t h o u t | Statement
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Wednesday, 25 September, 2002
truthout.org
"Mr. President, I rise today to express my very deep concern about recent statements coming from the White House - statements that attempt to politicize the issue of national security and, in the same breath, cast aspersions on members of this chamber.
Even to imply that "Democrats are not" - and this is a direct quote from President Bush - "interested in the security of the American people," is more than inappropriate. To my mind it is downright absurd. The Vice President went so far as to state, in the bluntest possible terms, that American security would be enhanced if a certain GOP candidate was elected to the House of Representatives.
No debate is more important - no debate requires the need for cooler heads - than that of national security. I welcome the statements earlier today from my colleagues, including the Majority Leader and the senior Senators from Hawaii and West Virginia.
I share their concern and their outrage, and I also agree that it is not too late to end this politicization. This is especially true when we in Congress will begin debate on whether to grant the President the authority to use force against Iraq. The President was right to send us the resolution, just as he was right to make his case before the United Nations and seek the support of the international community.
Now it is our job - our Constitutional duty - to debate this resolution. We must not, and we will not, be rushed into a vote. The decision to go to war is perhaps the most grave and significant decision that any nation makes. It is a decision that must be made on its merits, with a timetable determined by the cause and the case, and not based on political considerations and upcoming elections. Congress must not rush to judgement before it has had ample opportunity to answer the many questions that still remain regarding why a war - a pre-emptive war - should be fought against Iraq.
For example: Is there an immediate threat to American security, to justify an attack on another sovereign nation? How would such a war be conducted? How would we respond to Iraq's use of chemical or biological weapons? What are our responsibilities for post-war stability once Saddam Hussein is ousted?
There is no question that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, or that the potential of Iraq acquiring a nuclear capability is within the next 5 to 7 years is a possibility. - more - And there is reason to believe that Saddam has squirreled away biological and chemical weapons - but they are most likely close to civilians: in tunnels under Mosques, around schools and hospitals, and inside palaces or in mobile vehicles.
But this is not sufficient reason to pre-emptively attack another sovereign nation - for the first time in this nation's history -- without first being provoked by an attack against our homeland, our people, or our interests. It is not a sufficient reason to put our service men and women in harm's way when there are real, viable options, short of war, left on the table.
There is no question that this Country should take steps to disarm Iraq. Saddam Hussein, armed with chemical and biological weapons, represents a real threat to his own people, to the Middle East region, and to international security. The question becomes, is use of force is a first option or a last resort?
In my view, it should be a last resort. In my view, the U.S., working with the international community, should do all it can to disarm Iraq before jumping to military force as an option. If Saddam Hussein balks at inspectors, if he starts playing games, if he continues to thwart the will of the international community, then the use of force by the United States is the only remaining answer.
There is no question that Iraq is in direct violation of international law, numerous United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and poses a real threat to the region. But there is no persuasive evidence that Iraq is prepared to unleash its biological or chemical weapons today. Although he has used them against the Kurds in 1987 and 1988, and against Iran in their decade long war, he has not used them in over 10 years. Saddam may be homicidal, but he is not suicidal.
And, likewise, there is no persuasive evidence that he possess, today, nuclear weapons. He may be trying to gain these weapons, but he remains years away. Instead of rushing to war, I believe that we must proceed in a calm and methodological manner.
The United States should work - as the President himself suggested in his September 12 speech to the United Nations -- through the United Nations Security Council to obtain full and unconditional access for arms inspectors. We should seek the complete destruction of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. This approach should be our first option, not window-dressing or an option to be dismissed out of hand. And we should do this not for idealistic reasons, but because it is in our national security interests to do so.
Indeed, the benefit of pursuing a multilateral approach was seen clearly when Saudi Arabia suggested that if the United States were working through the United Nations it would grant U.S. forces access to its bases.
Action against Iraq becomes much more complicated from a military perspective, if there are no landing and basing rights in other Arab countries, and managing the aftermath becomes much more difficult if we find the entire Arab world against us.
And so I believe that should the United Nations fail in its efforts to compel Iraqi compliance with an inspection, verification, and destruction regime - either because other countries threaten a veto in the Security Council, or the UN is unable to muster the muscle and will to enforce its own resolutions - then the United States, with or without other willing partners in the international community, must be prepared to go it alone.
But we must be clear: If we go to war, it should be to force Iraq to disarm. At this time, it is critical that the United States stays the course in our war on terror. We have much unfinished work to do. Many of those who perpetrated the September 11 terrorist attacks remain at large: including two thirds of the Al Qaeda leadership, the Taliban and its leader, Mullah Omar, not to mention thousands of terrorists sympathetic to Al Qaeda worldwide, including in our own country.
Afghanistan remains a fragile and unstable country. The United States must continue in its efforts to rebuild Afghanistan and the Afghan economy, to assure that the Taliban and Al Qaeda do not return to power there, and to protect and stabilize the government of Hamid Karzai, and that any effort in Iraq not detract from the war on terrorism.
The President has rightly pointed out that the war on terrorism will be a long-fought battle. We must not take our eye off the ball. The President must come forward with a plan that explains not only how we fight this "two front" war without allowing one front to jeopardize our interests on the other, but also what we would do in the event of a major strike against Israel.
Finally, it is critical that if and as we consider any use of force against Iraq that we have a clear understanding of the aftermath. Who would do the rebuilding? Who would run any new government, and could that government provide security, and could it prevent a bitter and brutal battle between the Sunni and Shia?
As General Shalikashvili made clear in his recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, planning for a post-conflict situation - winning the peace - is every bit as important as planning for the conflict itself. And until the planning for post-conflict Iraq is in place - and it is not, now - we should not rush to initiate combat. In fact, every general I have talked with has urged caution. Every general I have talked with believes that this war could end up being much more difficult than some expect it to be.
To simply rush ahead and authorize the president to use force now, before these questions are answered, and without an imminent threat - save what some hope to gain from this issue in the elections - would be a grave error. Congress must debate these issues fully and thoroughly, on a schedule and with a time table driven by the merits of the issues. We must then move forward to pass a resolution tailored to the specific circumstances and giving the president the proper authority that he needs to safeguard United States national security interests.
So much is at stake here. American lives are at stake. Iraqi lives are at stake. And it may well be that untold numbers of lives are at stake, in the Persian Gulf, in the Middle East and, yes, right here in the U.S. of A. Matters of war and peace, of life and death, must not be held in the grip of short-sighted partisan rancor - and I for one refuse to make them so.
And I respectfully suggest that the Administration do the same. The stakes are simply too high." |
