Military

It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Committee, Ambassador Bremer. We have already had the benefit of your testimony in a previous closed session of the Committee, and we look forward to your remarks this afternoon.

I believe that everyone here today, whether they support or oppose our policies in Iraq, understands the scale of the difficulties you face in your task of reviving a country devastated by decades of dictatorship and creating the foundation for a government capable of providing its citizens with freedom and security.

The available resources for such a monumental task cannot be but inadequate, as no sector of Iraqi society is without gaping need. The Administration has asked for additional appropriations to ensure that our efforts in Iraq have a chance of success, and we are all eager to learn more about your plans for their use. The responsibility for rebuilding Iraq belongs, of course, to the Iraqi people, but we must ensure that our policies in Iraq have the necessary resources if they are to be successfully implemented. As the saying goes: Failure is not an option.

My assumption is that you would be the first to agree that not every decision has been perfect, not every problem has been foreseen, not every forecast has proven accurate. I doubt that any blueprint exists – or could ever exist – that could anticipate all of the obstacles to be encountered and prescribe the remedies to be taken. Similarly, no reasonable person would deny that public debate in a free society is not only permissible, but essential. I myself have expressed concerns regarding many aspects of our policies in Iraq and will continue to do so when appropriate. But I have been encouraged by the Administration’s obvious interest in listening to differing voices regarding what is the best course of action and adapting its policies in response, and I am pleased to note that you have been a conspicuous example of that receptivity to serious discussion.

Nevertheless, many critics would appear to be demanding a standard of perfection that I doubt they would be eager to have applied to themselves. I fear that some of the more strident statements may be tainted by political considerations that could have the unfortunate effect of distorting their authors’ true beliefs. Personally, I find that individuals who deliver their messages by shouting are often very difficult to understand, and I am never quite certain of just who is their intended audience.

Of course, we must hope that the international community will soon take up its responsibilities for assisting in the reconstruction of Iraq, and the Administration deserves much credit for its efforts to secure that participation. But, unless I am mistaken, virtually none have seized the opportunity to do their share. Have our severest critics, such as France and Germany, put forward a workable plan of their own or pledged any significant resources of their own?

The only assistance that I am aware of their having offered is to accord themselves a prominent role in decision-making but without assuming any risks or shouldering any costs. Their intended contribution apparently would be limited to telling us how we may or may not use our own resources and our own forces for carrying out their instructions.

If I have inadvertently overlooked an actual contribution on their part or have missed a constructive plan that they are prepared to implement – and I am confident that everyone here would agree that a list of criticisms from the sidelines does not amount to a plan – I would welcome any information on these subjects being brought forward.

I should also make the same request regarding the United Nations. Any serious person must give great weight to a comprehensive plan put forward by the UN in which the organization and its members would assume the direct responsibility for rebuilding Iraq, including providing the bulk of the resources needed for reconstruction and the forces necessary to guarantee order.

We are constantly bombarded with demands that the UN be given a greater role, but again, I have not yet seen a serious proposal advanced of how this would actually be accomplished other than by the UN’s taking an outsized and unearned role in determining how our resources and our forces would be used to implement goals not of our own choosing.

I cannot imagine that the American people would react positively to such a proposal, but I will gladly leave to others the burden of selling that novel idea. Nevertheless, I would hope that the UN and its advocates might soon provide an actual plan of action so that a little substance might be mixed into their assertions.

By the way, I cannot help but wonder if France erred in 1944 by not insisting that we secure the imprimatur of the League of Nations prior to our landing at Normandy.

As a further aside, I do not recall anyone in the days after Pearl Harbor asking President Roosevelt how much he planned to spend on winning World War II or what his timetable was for bringing the troops home.

It is an unfortunate reality that the world long ago became accustomed to the idea that the responsibility for dealing with any problem anywhere rests almost entirely with the United States. Often it is regarded as ours alone. No other country need offer anything, not even mild applause. For participation imposes costs and risks, and the calculation has usually been that there is more to be gained from standing back and allowing the United States to bear these costs and risks alone.

I am certain that the leadership in these countries understand that no matter how unrelenting their criticism, no matter how strenuous their efforts to hobble us, no matter how irresponsible their actions, they will continue to be the beneficiaries of our actions. By shielding them from their own folly, we have liberated them from the consequences of their own actions, and from their inaction. Theirs is a child’s view of the world, but I am sorry to say that it is as much our failing for having allowed it to develop as it is theirs for believing it.

No one would be happier than I to see France or Germany or the UN or any other power take on the responsibility of ensuring freedom and stability in some wretched corner of our globe, of bravely combating our common threats, of leading by example. But I’m afraid that roll call of accomplishments remains blank. Even on the continent of Europe itself, home of our most unrelenting critics, we are still the guarantor of security for all.

It is an astonishing fact that not only have we freed the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein’s vicious dictatorship and liberated the entire world from the menace he presented, but that we have had to do so virtually alone, relieved only by our British allies and the few brave others standing with us.

Far from receiving assistance, we are proceeding under a hail of stones thrown by countries which have previously benefitted from our unilateral actions, our unwillingness to wait for others to brave the dangers, our refusal to surrender our fate and their fate to darkness. Many owe their very freedom to us.

It is said by many that we had no option in Iraq, but that is untrue. For we always have options, both responsible and irresponsible. I, for one, am grateful that we have chosen the responsible one and hope that we have the endurance, despite all perils, to complete our task, even if we must do so alone.