NB: The letter below was initiated by the Project for a New American
Century and follows on a Jan 26 letter to President Clinton.
May 29, 1998
The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232 Capitol Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-6501
The Honorable Trent Lott
Senate Majority Leader
United States Senate
S-208 Capitol Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-7010
Dear Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott:
On January 26, we sent a letter to President Clinton expressing our
concern that the U.S. policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein was
failing. The result, we argued, would be that the vital interests of
the United States and its allies in the Middle East would soon be facing
a threat as severe as any we had known since the end of the Cold War.
We recommended a substantial change in the direction of U.S. policy:
Instead of further, futile efforts to "contain" Saddam, we argued that
the only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat
of weapons of mass destruction was to put in place policies that would
lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power. The
administration has not only rejected this advice but, as we warned, has
begun to abandon its own policy of containment.
In February, the Clinton Administration embraced the agreement
reached between U.N. Secretary General Koffi Annan and the Iraqi
government on February 23. At the time of the agreement, the
administration declared that Saddam had "reversed" himself and agreed to
permit the U.N. inspectors full, unfettered, and unlimited access to all
sites in Iraq. The administration also declared that the new
organizational arrangements worked out by Mr. Annan and the Iraqis would
not hamper in any way the free operation of UNSCOM. Finally, the
administration stated that, should Iraq return to a posture of
defiance, the international community would be united in support of a
swift and punishing military action.
According to the U.N. weapons inspectors, Iraq has yet to provide a
complete account of its programs for developing weapons of mass
destruction and has continued to obstruct investigations. Sites opened
to the inspectors after the agreement had "undergone extensive
evacuation," according to the most recent UNSCOM report. U.N. weapons
inspector Charles Duelfer has also pointed to significant problems in
the new reporting arrangements worked out by Annan and the Iraqis,
warning that these may have "important implications for the authority of
UNSCOM and its chief inspectors." And, in the wake of these "Potemkin
Village" inspections, the Iraqi government is now insisting that the
inspections process be brought to an end and sanctions lifted -- going
so far as to threaten the U.S. and it allies should its demands not be
met.
In the face of this new challenge from Saddam, however, the
President's public response has been only to say that he is "encouraged"
by Iraq's compliance with the U.N. inspections and to begin reducing
U.S. military forces in the Gulf region. Unwilling either to adopt
policies that would remove Saddam or sustain the credibility of its own
policy of containment, the administration has placed us on a path that
will inevitably free Saddam Hussein from all effective constraints.
Even if the administration is able to block Security Council efforts to
lift sanctions on Iraq this year, the massive expansion of the so-called
"oil for food" program will have the effect of overturning the sanctions
regime. It is now safe to predict that, in a year's time, absent a
sharp change in U.S. policy, Saddam will be effectively liberated from
constraints that have bound him since the end of the Gulf War seven
years ago.
The American people need to be made aware of the consequences of this
capitulation to Saddam:
- We will have suffered an incalculable blow to American leadership
and credibility.
- We will have sustained a significant defeat in our worldwide
efforts to limit the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Other
nations seeking to arm themselves with such weapons will have learned
that the U.S. lacks the resolve to resist their efforts.
- The administration will have unnecessarily put at risk U.S.
troops in the Persian Gulf, who will be vulnerable to attack by
biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons under Saddam Hussein's
control.
- Our friends and allies in the Middle East and Europe will soon
be subject to forms of intimidation by an Iraqi government bent on
dominating the Middle East and its oil reserves.
- As a consequence of the administration's failure, those
nations living under the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction
can be expected to adopt policies of accommodation toward Saddam. This
could well make Saddam the driving force of Middle East politics,
including on such important matters as the Middle East peace process.
Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott, during the most recent phase of
this crisis, you both took strong stands, stating that the goal of U.S.
policy should be to bring down Saddam and his regime. And, at the time
of the Annan deal, Senator Lott, you pointed out its debilitating
weaknesses and correctly reminded both your colleagues and the nation
that "We cannot afford peace at any price."
Now that the administration has failed to provide sound
leadership, we believe it is imperative that Congress take what steps it
can to correct U.S. policy toward Iraq. That responsibility is
especially pressing when presidential leadership is lacking or when the
administration is pursuing a policy fundamentally at odds with vital
American security interests. This is now the case. To Congress's
credit, it has passed legislation providing money to help Iraq's
democratic opposition and to establish a "Radio Free Iraq."
But more needs to be done, and Congress should do whatever is
constitutionally appropriate to establish a sound policy toward Iraq.
U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam
Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic
Iraq in its place. We recognize that this goal will not be achieved
easily. But the alternative is to leave the initiative to Saddam, who
will continue to strengthen his position at home and in the region.
Only the U.S. can lead the way in demonstrating that his rule is not
legitimate and that time is not on the side of his regime. To
accomplish Saddam's removal, the following political and
military measures should be undertaken:
- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge
Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including
indicting him as a war criminal;
- We should help establish and support (with economic,
political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free
government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;
- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide
protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and
- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military
presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our
vital interests in the Gulf -- and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam
from power.
Although the Clinton Administration's handling of the crisis
with Iraq has left Saddam Hussein in a stronger position than when the
crisis began, the reality is that his regime remains vulnerable to the
exercise of American political and military power. There is reason to
believe, moreover, that the citizens of Iraq are eager for an
alternative to Saddam, and that his grip on power is not firm. This
will be much more the case once it is made clear that the U.S. is
determined to help remove Saddam from power, and that an acceptable
alternative to his rule exists. In short, Saddam's continued rule
in Iraq is neither inevitable nor likely if we pursue the policy
outlined above in a serious and sustained fashion.
If we continue along the present course, however, Saddam will be
stronger at home, he will become even more powerful in the region, and
we will face the prospect of having to confront him at some later point
when the costs to us, our armed forces, and our allies will be even
higher. Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott, Congress should adopt the
measures necessary to avoid this impending defeat of vital U.S.
interests.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner
John R. Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
