• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

18 September 2002

Rumsfeld Seeks Congressional Support for Iraq Resolution

(He says threat posed by Saddam Hussein is real, dangerous) (10570)
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged Congress September 18 to
approve, before the scheduled congressional elections in November, a
resolution supporting the use of military force against Iraq if it
fails to abide by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
"No terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the
security of our people, and the stability of the world, than the
regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq," Rumsfeld said in prepared testimony
for the House Armed Services Committee. Rumsfeld is presenting
testimony designed to convince Congress of the need for a resolution
that authorizes President Bush to use "all appropriate means" to
counter the regime of Saddam Hussein. The president is expected to ask
for a formal resolution by Congress in the next few days, before
members recess in order to campaign for re-election.
Rumsfeld is scheduled to make a similar appearance before the Senate
Armed Services Committee September 19.
"The goal isn't inspections, the goal is disarmament," Rumsfeld said.
"That is what Iraq agreed to do."
President Bush met separately with leaders from Congress -- the House
of Representatives and the Senate -- in the Oval Office September 18,
and thanked the Democratic and Republican leadership for their
commitment to an Iraqi resolution before November.
Rumsfeld strengthened Bush's call for congressional support saying,
"No living dictator has shown the murderous combination of intent and
capability -- of aggression against his neighbors; oppression of his
own people; genocide; support of terrorism; pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction; the use of weapons of mass destruction; and the most
threatening hostility to its neighbors and to the United States" of
Saddam Hussein and his regime.
Following is the text of Rumsfeld's prepared remarks (note: in the
text, one billion means one thousand million):
(begin text)
Prepared Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
before the House Armed Services Committee regarding Iraq
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, D.C., September 18, 2002
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity
to meet with you today.
Last week, we commemorated the one-year anniversary of the most
devastating attack our nation has ever experienced -- more than 3,000
innocent people killed in a single day.
Today, I want to discuss the task of preventing even more devastating
attacks -- attacks that could kill not thousands, but potentially tens
of thousands of our fellow citizens.
As we meet, state sponsors of terror across the world are working to
develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction. As we speak,
chemists, biologists, and nuclear scientists are toiling in weapons
labs and underground bunkers, working to give the world's most
dangerous dictators weapons of unprecedented power and lethality.
The threat posed by those regimes is real. It is dangerous. And it is
growing with each passing day. We cannot wish it away.
We have entered a new security environment, one that is dramatically
different than the one we grew accustomed to over the past
half-century. We have entered a world in which terrorist movements and
terrorists states are developing the capacity to cause unprecedented
destruction.
Today, our margin of error is notably different. In the 20th century,
we were dealing, for the most part, with conventional weapons --
weapons that could kill hundreds or thousands of people, generally
combatants. In the 21st century, we are dealing with weapons of mass
destruction that can kill potentially tens of thousands of people --
innocent men, women and children.
Further, because of the nature of these new threats, we are in an age
of little or no warning, when threats can emerge suddenly -- at any
place or time -- to surprise us. Terrorist states have enormous
appetite for these powerful weapons -- and active programs to develop
them. They are finding ways to gain access to these capabilities. This
is not a possibility -- it is a certainty. In word and deed, they have
demonstrated a willingness to use those capabilities. Moreover, after
September 11th, they have discovered a new means of delivering these
weapons -- terrorist networks. To the extent that they might transfer
WMD to terrorist groups, they could conceal their responsibility for
attacks. And if they believe they can conceal their responsibility for
an attack, then they would likely not be deterred.
We are on notice. Let there be no doubt: an attack will be attempted.
The only question is when and by what technique. It could be months, a
year, or several years. But it will happen. It is in our future. Each
of us needs to pause, and think about that for a moment -- about what
it would mean for our country, for our families -- and indeed for the
world.
If the worst were to happen, not one of us here today will be able to
honestly say it was a surprise. Because it will not be a surprise. We
have connected the dots as much as it is humanly possible -- before
the fact. Only by waiting until after the event could we have proof
positive. The dots are there for all to see. The dots are there for
all to connect. If they aren't good enough, rest assured they will
only be good enough after another disaster -- a disaster of still
greater proportions. And by then it will be too late.
The question facing us is this: what is the responsible course of
action for our country? Do you believe it is our responsibility to
wait for a nuclear, chemical or biological 9/11? Or is it the
responsibility of free people to do something now -- to take steps to
deal with the threat before we are attacked?
The President has made his position clear: the one thing that is not
an option is doing nothing.
There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass
destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, to name but a few. But
no terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the
security of our people, and the stability of the world, than the
regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
No living dictator has shown the murderous combination of intent and
capability -- of aggression against his neighbors; oppression of his
own people; genocide; support of terrorism; pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction; the use of weapons of mass destruction; and the most
threatening hostility to its neighbors and to the United States,
[other] than Saddam Hussein and his regime.
Mr. Chairman, these facts about Saddam Hussein's regime should be part
of this record and of our country's considerations:
-- Saddam Hussein has openly praised the attacks of September 11th.
-- Last week, on the anniversary of 9-11, his state-run press called
the attacks "God's punishment."
-- He has repeatedly threatened the U.S. and its allies with terror --
once declaring that "every Iraqi [can] become a missile."
-- He has ordered the use of chemical weapons -- Sarin, Tabun, VX, and
mustard agents -- against his own people, in one case killing 5,000
innocent civilians in a single day.
-- His regime has invaded two of its neighbors, and threatened others.
-- In 1980, they invaded Iran, and used chemical weapons against
Iranian forces.
-- In 1990, they invaded Kuwait and are responsible for thousands of
documented cases of torture, rape and murder of Kuwaiti civilians
during their occupation.
-- In 1991, they were poised to march on and occupy other nations --
and would have done so, had they not been stopped by the U.S.-led
coalition forces.
-- His regime has launched ballistic missiles at four of their
neighbors -- Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
-- His regime plays host to terrorist networks, and has directly
ordered acts of terror on foreign soil.
-- His regime assassinates its opponents, both in Iraq and abroad, and
has attempted to assassinate the former Israeli Ambassador to Great
Britain, and a former U.S. President.
-- He has executed members of their cabinet, including the Minister of
Health, whom he personally shot and killed.
-- His regime has committed genocide and ethnic cleansing in Northern
Iraq, ordering the extermination of between 50,000 and 100,000 people
and the destruction of over 4,000 villages.
-- His attacks on the Kurds drove 2 million refugees into Turkey,
Syria and Iran.
-- His regime has brought the Marsh Arabs in Southern Iraq to the
point of extinction, drying up the Iraqi marshlands in order to move
against their villages -- one of the worst environmental crimes ever
committed.
-- His regime is responsible for catastrophic environmental damage,
setting fire to over 1,100 Kuwaiti oil wells.
-- His regime beat and tortured American POWs during the 1991 Persian
Gulf War, and used them as "human shields."
-- His regime has still failed to account for hundreds of POWs,
including Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian,
Bahraini and Omani nationals -- and an American pilot shot down over
Iraq during the Gulf War.
-- His regime on almost a daily basis continues to fire missiles and
artillery at U.S. and coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones
in Northern and Southern Iraq, and has made clear its objective of
shooting down coalition pilots enforcing U.N. resolutions -- it is the
only place in the world where U.S. forces are shot at with impunity.
-- His regime has subjected tens of thousands of political prisoners
and ordinary Iraqis to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary
execution, torture, beatings, burnings, electric shocks, starvation
and mutilation.
-- He has ordered doctors to surgically remove the ears of military
deserters, and the gang rape of Iraqi women, including political
prisoners, the wives and daughters of their opposition and members of
the regime suspected of disloyalty.
-- His regime is actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and
willing to pay a high price to get them -- giving up tens of billions
in oil revenue under economic sanctions by refusing inspections to
preserve his WMD programs.
-- His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological
weapons -- including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly
smallpox.
-- His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical
weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.
-- His regime has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear
weapons.
-- They have the knowledge of how to produce nuclear weapons, and
designs for at least two different nuclear devices.
-- They have a team of scientists, technicians and engineers in place,
as well as the infrastructure needed to build a weapon.
-- Very likely all they need to complete a weapon is fissile material
-- and they are, at this moment, seeking that material -- both from
foreign sources and the capability to produce it indigenously.
-- His regime has dozens of ballistic missiles, and is working to
extend their range in violation of U.N. restrictions.
-- His regime is pursuing pilotless aircraft as a means of delivering
chemical and biological weapons.
-- His regime agreed after the Gulf War to give up weapons of mass
destruction and submit to international inspections -- then lied,
cheated and hid their WMD programs for more than a decade.
-- His regime has in place an elaborate, organized system of denial
and deception to frustrate both inspectors and outside intelligence
efforts.
-- His regime has violated U.N. economic sanctions, using illicit oil
revenues to fuel their WMD aspirations.
-- His regime has diverted funds from the U.N.'s "oil for food"
program -- funds intended to help feed starving Iraqi civilians -- to
fund WMD programs.
-- His regime violated 16 U.N. resolutions, repeatedly defying the
will of the international community without cost or consequence.
-- And his regime is determined to acquire the means to strike the
U.S., its friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction, acquire
the territory of their neighbors, and impose their control over the
Persian Gulf region.
As the President warned the United Nations last week, "Saddam
Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger." It is a danger to
its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East, and to
international peace and stability. It is a danger we do not have the
option to ignore.
The world has acquiesced in Saddam Hussein's aggression, abuses and
defiance for more than a decade.
In his U.N. address, the President explained why we should not allow
the Iraqi regime to acquire weapons of mass destruction -- and issued
a challenge to the international community: to enforce the numerous
resolutions the U.N. has passed and Saddam Hussein has defied; to show
that Security Council's decisions will not to be cast aside without
cost or consequence; to show that the U.N. is up to the challenge of
dealing with a dictator like Saddam Hussein; to show that the U.N. is
determined not to become irrelevant.
President Bush has made clear that the United States wants to work
with the U.N. Security Council to deal with the threat posed by the
Iraqi regime. But he made clear the consequences of Iraq's continued
defiance: "The purposes of the United States should not be doubted.
The Security Council resolutions will be enforced ... or action will
be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also
lose its power." The President has asked the Members of the House and
the Senate to support the actions that may be necessary to deliver on
that pledge. He urged that the Congress act before the congressional
recess. He asked that you send a clear signal -- to the world
community and the Iraqi regime -- that our country is united in
purpose and ready to act. Only certainty of U.S. and U.N.
purposefulness can have even the prospect of affecting the Iraqi
regime.
It is important that Congress send that message as soon as possible --
before the U.N. Security Council votes. The Security Council must act
soon, and it is important that the U.S. Congress signal the world
where the U.S. stands before the U.N. vote takes place. Delaying a
vote in the Congress would send a message that the U.S. may be
unprepared to take a stand, just as we are asking the international
community to take a stand, and as Iraq will be considering its
options.
Delay would signal the Iraqi regime that they can continue their
violations of the U.N. resolutions. It serves no U.S. or U.N. purpose
to give Saddam Hussein excuses for further delay. His regime should
recognize that the U.S. and the U.N. are purposeful.
It was Congress that changed the objective of U.S. policy from
containment to regime change, by the passage of the Iraq Liberation
Act in 1998. The President is now asking Congress to support that
policy.
A decision to use military force is never easy. No one with any sense
considers war a first choice -- it is the last thing that any rational
person wants to do. And it is important that the issues surrounding
this decision be discussed and debated.
In recent weeks, a number of questions have been surfaced by Senators,
Members of Congress and former government officials. Some of the
arguments raised are important. Just as there are risks in acting, so
too there are risks in not acting.
Those risks need to be balanced, and to do so it is critical to
address a number of the issues that have been raised:
Some have asked whether an attack on Iraq would disrupt and distract
the U.S. from the Global War on Terror.
The answer to that is: Iraq is a part of the Global War on Terror --
stopping terrorist regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction
is a key objective of that war. We can fight all elements of this war
simultaneously.
Our principal goal in the war on terror is to stop another 9/11 -- or
a WMD attack that could make 9/11 seem modest by comparison -- before
it happens. Whether that threat comes from a terrorist regime or a
terrorist network is beside the point. Our objective is to stop them,
regardless of the source.
In his State of the Union address last January, President Bush made
our objectives clear. He said: "by seeking weapons of mass
destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could
provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their
hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the
United States. In any of these cases the price of indifference would
be catastrophic." Ultimately, history will judge us all by what we do
now to deal with this danger.
Another question that has been asked is this: The Administration
argues Saddam Hussein poses a grave and growing danger. Where is the
"smoking gun?"
Mr. Chairman, the last thing we want is a smoking gun. A gun smokes
after it has been fired. The goal must be to stop Saddam Hussein
before he fires a weapon of mass destruction against our people. As
the President told the United Nations last week, "The first time we
may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid,
he uses one. We owe it to ... our citizens to do everything in our
power to prevent that day from coming." If the Congress or the world
wait for a so-called "smoking gun," it is certain that we will have
waited too long.
But the question raises an issue that it is useful to discuss -- about
the kind of evidence we consider to be appropriate to act in the 21st
century.
In our country, it has been customary to seek evidence that would
prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court of law. That
approach is appropriate when the objective is to protect the rights of
the accused. But in the age of WMD, the objective is not to protect
the "rights" of dictators like Saddam Hussein -- it is to protect the
lives of our citizens. And when there is that risk, and we are trying
to defend against the closed societies and shadowy networks that
threaten us in the 21st century, expecting to find that standard of
evidence, from thousands of miles away, and to do so before such a
weapon has been used, is not realistic. And, after such weapons have
been used it is too late.
I suggest that any who insist on perfect evidence are back in the 20th
century and still thinking in pre-9/11 terms. On September 11th, we
were awakened to the fact that America is now vulnerable to
unprecedented destruction. That awareness ought to be sufficient to
change the way we think about our security, how we defend our country
-- and the type of certainty and evidence we consider appropriate.
In the 20th century, when we were dealing largely with conventional
weapons, we could wait for perfect evidence. If we miscalculated, we
could absorb an attack, recover, take a breath, mobilize, and go out
and defeat our attackers. In the 21st century, that is no longer the
case, unless we are willing and comfortable accepting the loss not of
thousands of lives, but potentially tens of thousands of lives -- a
high price indeed.
We have not, will not, and cannot know everything that is going on in
the world. Over the years, even our best efforts, intelligence has
repeatedly underestimated the weapons capabilities of a variety of
countries of major concern to us. We have had numerous gaps of two,
four, six or eight years between the time a country of concern first
developed a WMD capability and the time we finally learned about it.
We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons
of mass destruction and is pursuing nuclear weapons; that they have a
proven willingness to use the weapons at their disposal; that they
have proven aspirations to seize the territory of, and threaten, their
neighbors; proven support for and cooperation with terrorist networks;
and proven record of declared hostility and venomous rhetoric against
the United States. Those threats should be clear to all.
In his U.N. address, the President said "we know that Saddam Hussein
pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his
country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left?" To the
contrary, knowing what we know about Iraq's history, no conclusion is
possible except that they have and are accelerating their WMD
programs.
Now, do we have perfect evidence that can tell us precisely the date
Iraq will have a deliverable nuclear device, or when and where he
might try to use it? That is not knowable. But it is strange that some
seem to want to put the burden of proof on us -- the burden of proof
ought to be on him -- to prove he has disarmed; to prove he no longer
poses a threat to peace and security. And that he cannot do.
Committees of Congress currently are asking hundreds of questions
about what happened on September 11th -- pouring over thousands of
pages of documents, and asking who knew what, when and why they didn't
prevent that tragedy. I suspect, that in retrospect, most of those
investigating 9/11 would have supported preventive action to pre-empt
that threat, if it had been possible to see it coming.
Well, if one were to compare the scraps of information the government
had before September 11th to the volumes of information the government
has today about Iraq's pursuit of WMD, his use of those weapons, his
record of aggression and his consistent hostility toward the United
States -- and then factor in our country's demonstrated vulnerability
after September 11th -- the case the President made should be clear.
As the President said, time is not on our side. If more time passes,
and the attacks we are concerned about come to pass, I would not want
to have ignored all the warning signs and then be required to explain
why our country failed to protect our fellow citizens.
We cannot go back in time to stop the September 11th attack. But we
can take actions now to prevent some future threats.
Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent --
that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons.
I would not be so certain. Before Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the
best intelligence estimates were that Iraq was at least 5-7 years away
from having nuclear weapons. The experts were flat wrong. When the
U.S. got on the ground, it found the Iraqi's were probably six months
to a year away from having a nuclear weapon -- not 5 to 7 years.
We do not know today precisely how close he is to having a deliverable
nuclear weapon. What we do know is that he has a sizable appetite for
them, that he has been actively and persistently pursuing them for
more than 20 years, and that we allow him to get them at our peril.
Moreover, let's say he is 5-7 years from a deliverable nuclear weapon.
That raises the question: 5-7 years from when? From today? From 1998,
when he kicked out the inspectors? Or from earlier, when inspectors
were still in country? There is no way of knowing except from the
ground, unless one believes what Saddam Hussein says.
But those who raise questions about the nuclear threat need to focus
on the immediate threat from biological weapons. From 1991 to 1995,
Iraq repeatedly insisted it did not have biological weapons. Then, in
1995, Saddam's son-in-law defected and told the inspectors some of the
details of Iraq's biological weapons program. Only then did Iraq admit
it had produced tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other
biological weapons. But even then, they did not come clean. U.N.
inspectors believe Iraq had in fact produced two to four-times the
amount of biological agents it had declared. Those biological agents
were never found. Iraq also refused to account for some three tons of
materials that could be used to produce biological weapons.
Iraq has these weapons. They are much simpler to deliver than nuclear
weapons, and even more readily transferred to terrorist networks, who
could allow Iraq to deliver them without fingerprints.
If you want an idea of the devastation Iraq could wreak on our country
with a biological attack, consider the recent "Dark Winter" exercise
conducted by Johns Hopkins University. It simulated a biological WMD
attack in which terrorists released smallpox in three separate
locations in the U.S. Within 22 days, it is estimated it would have
spread to 26 states, with an estimated 6,000 new infections occurring
daily. Within two months, the worst-case estimate indicated one
million people could be dead and another 2 million infected. Not a
nice picture.
The point is this: we know Iraq possesses biological weapons, and
chemical weapons, and is expanding and improving their capabilities to
produce them. That should be of every bit as much concern as Iraq's
potential nuclear capability.
Some have argued that even if Iraq has these weapons, Saddam Hussein
does not intend to use WMD against the U.S. because he is a survivor,
not a suicide bomber -- that he would be unlikely to take actions that
could lead to his own destruction.
Then why is Iraq pursuing WMD so aggressively? Why are they willing to
pay such a high price for them -- to suffer a decade of economic
sanctions that have cost them tens of billions in oil revenues --
sanctions they could get lifted simply by an agreement to disarm?
One answer is that, as some critics have conceded, "he seeks weapons
of mass destruction ... to deter us from intervening to block his
aggressive designs." This is no doubt a motivation. But consider the
consequences if they were allowed to succeed.
Imagine for a moment that Iraq demonstrated the capacity to attack
U.S. or European populations centers with nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons. Then imagine you are the President of the United
States, trying to put together an international coalition to stop
their aggression, after Iraq had demonstrated that capability. It
would be a daunting task. His regime believes that simply by
possessing the capacity to deliver WMD to Western capitals, he will be
able to prevent -- terrorize -- the free world from projecting force
to stop his aggression -- driving the West into a policy of forced
isolationism.
That said, it is far from clear that he would not necessarily restrain
from taking actions that could result in his destruction. For example,
that logic did not stop the Taliban from supporting and harboring
al-Qaeda as they planned and executed repeated attacks on the U.S. And
their miscalculation resulted in the destruction of their regime.
Regimes without checks and balances are prone to grave
miscalculations. Saddam Hussein has no checks whatsoever on his
decision-making authority. Who among us really believes it would be
wise or prudent for us to base our security on the hope that Saddam
Hussein, or his sons who might succeed him, could not make the same
fatal miscalculations as Mullah Omar and the Taliban?
It is my view that we would be ill-advised to stake our people's lives
on Saddam Hussein's supposed "survival instinct."
Some have argued Iraq is unlikely to use WMD against us because,
unlike terrorist networks, Saddam has a "return address."
Mr. Chairman, there is no reason for confidence that if Iraq launched
a WMD attack on the U.S. it would necessarily have an obvious "return
address." There are ways Iraq could easily conceal responsibility for
a WMD attack. They could deploy "sleeper cells" armed with biological
weapons to attack us from within -- and then deny any knowledge or
connection to the attacks. Or they could put a WMD-tipped missile on a
"commercial" shipping vessel, sail it within range of our coast, fire
it, and then melt back into the commercial shipping traffic before we
knew what hit us. Finding that ship would be like searching for a
needle in a haystack -- a bit like locating a single terrorist. Or
they could recruit and utilize a terrorist network with similar views
and objectives, and pass on weapons of mass destruction to them. It is
this nexus between a terrorist state like Iraq with WMD and terrorist
networks that has so significantly changed the U.S. security
environment.
We still do not know with certainty who was behind the 1996 bombing
[of] the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia -- an attack that killed 19
American service members. We still do not know who is responsible for
last year's anthrax attacks. The nature of terrorist attacks is that
it is often very difficult to identify who is ultimately responsible.
Indeed, our consistent failure over the past two decades to trace
terrorist attacks to their ultimate source gives terrorist states the
lesson that using terrorist networks as proxies is an effective way of
attacking the U.S. with impunity.
Some have opined there is scant evidence of Iraq's ties to terrorists,
and he has little incentive to make common cause withthem.
That is not correct. Iraq's ties to terrorist networks are
long-standing. It is no coincidence that Abu Nidal was in Baghdad,
when he died under mysterious circumstances. Iraq has also reportedly
provided safe haven to Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the FBI's most
wanted terrorists, who was a key participant in the first World Trade
Center bombing. We know that al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq today, and
that little happens in Iraq without the knowledge of the Saddam
Hussein regime. We also know that there have been a number of contacts
between Iraq and al-Qaeda over the years. We know Saddam has ordered
acts of terror himself, including the attempted assassination of a
former U.S. President.
He has incentives to make common cause with terrorists. He shares many
common objectives with groups like al-Qaeda, including an antipathy
for the Saudi royal family and a desire to drive the U.S. out of the
Persian Gulf region. Moreover, if he decided it was in his interest to
conceal his responsibility for an attack on the U.S., providing WMD to
terrorists would be an effective way of doing so.
Some have said that they would support action to remove Saddam if the
U.S. could prove a connection to the attacks of September 11th -- but
there is no such proof.
The question implies that the U.S. should have to prove that Iraq has
already attacked us in order to deal with that threat. The objective
is to stop him before he attacks us and kills thousands of our
citizens.
The case against Iraq does not depend on an Iraqi link to 9/11. The
issue for the U.S. is not vengeance, retribution or retaliation -- it
is whether the Iraqi regime poses a growing danger to the safety and
security of our people, and of the world. There is no question but
that it does.
Some argue that North Korea and Iran are more immediate threats than
Iraq. North Korea almost certainly has nuclear weapons, and is
developing missiles that will be able to reach most of the continental
United States. Iran has stockpiles of chemical weapons, is developing
ballistic missiles of increasing range, and is aggressively pursuing
nuclear weapons. The question is asked: why not deal with them first?
Iran and North Korea are indeed threats -- problems we take seriously.
That is why President Bush named them specifically, when he spoke
about an "Axis of Evil." And we have policies to address both.
But Iraq is unique. No other living dictator matches Saddam Hussein's
record of waging aggressive war against his neighbors; pursuing
weapons of mass destruction; using WMD against his own people and
other nations; launching ballistic missiles at his neighbors;
brutalizing and torturing his own citizens; harboring terrorist
networks; engaging in terrorist acts, including the attempted
assassination of foreign officials; violating his international
commitments; lying, cheating and hiding his WMD programs; deceiving
and defying the express will of the United Nations over and over
again.
As the President told the U.N., "in one place -- in one regime -- we
find all these dangers in their most lethal and aggressive forms."
Some respond by saying, OK, Iraq poses a threat we will eventually
have to deal with -- but now is not the time to do so.
To that, I would ask: when? Will it be a better time when his regime
is stronger? When its WMD programs are still further advanced? After
he further builds his forces, which are stronger and deadlier with
each passing day? Yes, there are risks in acting. The President
understands those risks. But there are also risks in further delay. As
the President has said: "I will not wait on events, while dangers
gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The
United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous
regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
Others say that overthrowing the regime should be the last step, not
the first.
I would respond that for more than a decade now, the international
community has tried every other step. They have tried diplomacy; they
have tried sanctions and embargoes; they have tried positive
inducements, such as the "oil for food" program; they have tried
inspections; they have tried limited military strikes. Together, all
these approaches have failed to accomplish the U.N. goals.
If the President were to decide to take military action to overthrow
the regime, it would be not the first step, it would be the last step,
after a decade of failed diplomatic and economic steps to stop his
drive for WMD.
Some have asked: why not just contain him? The West lived for 40 years
with the Soviet threat, and never felt the need to take pre-emptive
action. If containment worked on the Soviet Union, why not Iraq?
First, it's clear from the Iraqi regimes 11 years of defiance that
containment has not led to their compliance. To the contrary,
containment is breaking down -- the regime continues to receive funds
from illegal oil sales and procure military hardware necessary to
develop weapons of mass murder. So not only has containment failed to
reduce the threat, it has allowed the threat to grow.
Second, with the Soviet Union we faced an adversary that already
possessed nuclear weapons -- thousands of them. Our goal with Iraq is
to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. We are not interested in
establishing a balance of terror with the likes of Iraq, like the one
that existed with the Soviet Union. We are interested in stopping a
balance of terror from forming.
Third, with the Soviet Union, we believed that time was on our side --
and we were correct. With Iraq, the opposite is true -- time is not
our side. Every month that goes by, his WMD programs are progressing
and he moves closer to his goal of possessing the capability to strike
our population, and our allies, and hold them hostage to blackmail.
Finally, while containment worked in the long run, the Soviet Union's
nuclear arsenal prevented the West from responding when they invaded
their neighbor, Afghanistan. Does anyone really want Saddam to have
that same deterrent, so he can invade his neighbors with impunity?
Some ask: Why does he have to be overthrown? Can't we just take out
the capabilities he has that threaten us?
While the President has not made that decision, the problem with doing
it piecemeal is this: First, we do not know where all of Iraq's WMD
facilities are. We do know where a fraction of them are. Second, of
the facilities we do know, not all are vulnerable to attack from the
air. Some are underground. Some are mobile. Others are purposely
located near population centers -- schools, mosques, hospitals, etc.
-- where an air strike could kill large numbers of innocent people.
The Iraq problem cannot be solved with air strikes alone.
Some have argued that, if we do have to go to war, the U.S. should
first lay out details of a truly comprehensive inspections regime,
which, if Iraq failed to comply, would provide a casus belli.
I would respond this way: if failure to comply with WMD inspections is
a casus belli, the U.N. already has it -- Iraq's non-compliance with
U.N. inspection regimes has been going on for more than a decade. What
else can one ask for?
The U.S. is not closed to inspections as an element of an effective
response. But the goal is not inspections -- it is disarmament. Any
inspections would have to be notably different from the past. Given
the history of this regime, the world community has every right to be
skeptical that it would be. And that is why, in 1998, the U.S. began
to speak of regime change. Our goal is disarmament. The only purpose
of any inspections would be to prove that Iraq has disarmed, which
would require Iraq to reverse its decades-long policy of pursuing
these weapons: something they are unlikely to do.
There are serious concerns about whether an inspections regime could
be effective. Even the most intrusive inspection regime would have
difficultly getting at all his weapons of mass destruction. Many of
his WMD capabilities are mobile and can be hidden to evade inspectors.
He has vast underground networks and facilities to hide WMD, and
sophisticated denial and deception techniques. It is simply impossible
to "spot check" a country the size of Iraq. Unless we have people
inside the Iraqi program who are willing to tell us what they have and
where they have it -- as we did in 1995 with the defection of Saddam's
son in law, Hussein Kamel -- it is easy for the Iraqi regime to hide
its capabilities from us.
Indeed, Hans Blix, the chief U.N. Weapons inspector, said as much in
an interview with the New York Times last week. According to the
Times, (quote) " [Mr. Blix] acknowledged that there were some
limitations to what his team could accomplish even if it was allowed
to return. Mr. Blix said his inspectors might not be able to detect
mobile laboratories for producing biological weapons materials, or
underground storehouses for weapons substances, if the inspectors did
not have information about such sites from the last time they were in
Iraq or have not seen traces of them in satellite surveillance
photography." (Unquote).
When UNSCOM inspectors were on the ground, they did an admirable job
of uncovering many of Iraq's violations -- which is undoubtedly why
Iraq had them expelled. But despite the U.N.'s best efforts, from
1991-1995 Saddam was able to conceal some of his nuclear program and
his biological weapons program. Some aspects were uncovered after his
son-in-law defected and provided information that allowed inspectors
to find them. And even then, Iraq was able to hide many of those
activities from inspectors -- capabilities he most likely still has
today, in addition to what he has developed in recent years.
There is a place in this world for inspections. They tend to be
effective if the target nation is cooperating -- if they are actually
willing to disarm and want to prove to the world that they are doing
so. They tend not be as effective in uncovering deceptions and
violations when the target is determined not to disarm. Iraq's record
of the past decade shows the regime is not interested in disarming or
cooperating. Their behavior demonstrates they want weapons of mass
destruction and are determined to continue developing them.
Some ask: now that Iraq has agreed to "unconditional inspections," why
does Congress need to act?
Iraq has demonstrated great skill at playing the international
community. When it's the right moment to lean forward, they lean
forward. When it's a time to lean back, they lean back. It's a dance.
They can go on for months or years jerking the U.N. around. When they
find that things are not going their way, they throw out a proposal
like this. And hopeful people say: "There's our opportunity. They are
finally being reasonable. Seize the moment. Let's give them another
chance." And then we repeatedly find, at the last moment, that Iraq
withdraws that carrot and goes back into their mode of rejecting the
international community. And the dance starts all over again.
The issue is not inspections. The issue is disarmament. The issue is
compliance. As the President made clear in his U.N. address, we
require Iraq's compliance with all 16 U.N. resolutions that they have
defied over the past decade. And, as the President said, the U.N.
Security Council -- not the Iraqi regime -- needs to decide how to
enforce its own resolutions. Congress's support for the President is
what is needed to further generate international support.
Some have asked whether military intervention in Iraq means the U.S.
would have to go to war with every terrorist state that is pursuing
WMD?
The answer is: no. Taking military action in Iraq does not mean that
it would be necessary or appropriate to take military action against
other states that possess or are pursuing WMD. For one thing,
preventive action in one situation may very well produce a deterrent
effect on other states. After driving the Taliban from power in
Afghanistan, we have already seen a change in behavior in certain
regimes.
Moreover, dealing with some states may not require military action. In
some cases, such as Iran, change could conceivably come from within.
The young people and the women in Iran are increasingly fed up with
the tight clique of Mullahs -- they want change, and may well rise up
to change their leadership at some point.
Some say that there is no international consensus behind ousting
Saddam -- and most of our key allies are opposed.
First, the fact is that there are a number of countries that want
Saddam Hussein gone. Some are reluctant to say publicly just yet. But,
if the U.S. waited for a consensus before acting, we would never do
anything. Obviously, one's first choice in life is to have everyone
agree with you at the outset. In reality, that is seldom the case. It
takes time, leadership and persuasion. Leadership is about deciding
what is right, and then going out and persuading others.
The coalition we have fashioned in the global war on terror today
includes some 90 nations -- literally half the world. It is the
greatest coalition ever assembled in the annals of human history. It
was not there on September 11th. It was built, one country at a time,
over a long period of time. If we had waited for consensus, the
Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan today. The worldwide
coalition was formed by leadership.
During the Persian Gulf War, the coalition eventually included 36
nations. But they were not there on August 2, 1990, when Saddam
invaded Kuwait. They were not there on August 5th, when the President
George H. W. Bush announced to the world that Saddam's aggression
"will not stand." That coalition was built over a period of many
months.
With his U.N. speech, President George W. Bush began the process of
building international support for dealing with Iraq. The reaction has
been positive. We will continue to state our case, as the President is
doing, and I suspect that as he does so, you will find that other
countries in increasing numbers will cooperate and participate. Will
it be unanimous? No. Does anyone expect it to be unanimous? No. Does
it matter that it will not be unanimous? No. But does the U.S. want
all the support possible -- you bet. Just as we have in the coalition
supporting the Global War on Terrorism.
The point is: if our nation's leaders do the right thing, others will
follow and support the just cause -- just they have in the global war
against terror.
Some say that our European allies may reluctantly go along in the end,
but that U.S. intervention in Iraq would spark concern in the Arab
world -- that not one country in that regions supports us, and many
are vocally opposed.
That is not so. Saddam's neighbors are deathly afraid of him -- and
understandably so. He has invaded his neighbors, used weapons of mass
destruction against them, and launched ballistic missiles at them. He
aspires to dominate the region. The nations of the region would be
greatly relieved to have him gone, and that if Saddam Hussein is
removed from power, the reaction in the region will be not outrage,
but great relief. And the reaction of the Iraqi people will most
certainly be jubilation.
Some ask, but will they help us? Will they give us access to bases and
territory and airspace we need to conduct a military operation?
The answer is that the President has not decided to take military
action, but, if he does, we will have all the support we need to get
the job done. You can be certain of it.
Another argument is that military action in Iraq will be expensive,
and will have high costs for the global economy.
That may be true. But there are also dollar costs to not acting -- and
those costs could well be far greater. Consider: the New York City
Comptroller estimates that the economic costs of the Sept. 11 attacks
to New York alone were between $83 and $95 billion. He further
estimated that New York lost 83,000 existing jobs and some 63,000 jobs
the city estimates would have been created had the attacks not
happened. One institute puts the cost to the national economy at $191
billion -- including 1.64 million jobs lost as a direct result of the
9/11 attacks. Other estimates are higher -- as much as $250 billion in
lost productivity, sales, jobs, advertising, airline revenue and the
like. And that is not to mention the cost in human lives, and the
suffering of those who lost fathers and mothers, sons and daughters,
sisters and brothers that day.
And we must not forget that the costs of a nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons attack would be far worse. The price in lives would
be not thousands, but tens of thousands. And the economic costs could
make September 11th pale by comparison. Those are the costs that also
must be weighed carefully. And this is not mention the cost to one's
conscience of being wrong.
Some have suggested that if the U.S. were to act it might provoke
Saddam Hussein's use of WMD. Last time, the argument goes, he didn't
use chemical weapons on U.S. troops and allies because he saw our goal
was not to oust him, but to push back his aggression. This time, the
argument goes, the opposite would be true, and he would have nothing
to lose by using WMD.
That is an important point. And the President made clear on March 13,
2002, the consequences of such an attack. He said: "we've got all
options on the table because we want to make it very clear to nations
that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass
destruction against us, our allies, or our friends."
There are ways to mitigate the risk of a chem-bio attack, but it
cannot be entirely eliminated -- it is true that could be a risk of
military action. But consider the consequences if the world were to
allow that risk to deter us from acting. We would then have sent a
message to the world about the value of weapons of mass destruction
that we would deeply regret having sent. A country thinking about
acquiring WMD would conclude that the U.S. had been deterred by Iraq's
chemical and biological weapons capabilities, and they could then
resolve to pursue those weapons to assure their impunity. The message
the world should want to send is the exact opposite. The message
should be that Iraq's pursuit of WMD has not only not made it more
secure, it has made it less secure -- that by pursuing those weapons,
they have attracted undesired attention to themselves.
But if he is that dangerous, then that only makes the case for action
stronger -- because the longer we wait, the more deadly his regime
becomes. If the world community were to be deterred from acting today
by the threat that Iraq might use chemical or biological weapons, how
will the U.N. feel when one day, when Iraq demonstrates it has a
deliverable nuclear weapon? The risks will only grow worse. If we are
deterred today, we could be deterred forever -- and Iraq will have
achieved its objective. Or will the world community be deterred until
Iraq uses a weapon of mass destruction, and only then decide it is
time to act.
But I would suggest that even if Saddam Hussein were to issue an order
for the use chemical or biological weapons, that does not mean his
orders would necessarily be carried out. Saddam Hussein might not have
anything to lose, but those beneath him in the chain of command most
certainly would have a great deal to lose -- let there be no doubt. He
has maintained power by instilling fear in his subordinates. If he is
on the verge of losing power, he may also lose his ability to impose
that fear -- and, thus, the blind obedience of those around him. Wise
Iraqis will not obey orders to use WMD.
If President Bush were to decide to take military action, the U.S.
will execute his order and finish the job professionally -- Saddam
Hussein and his regime would be removed from power. Therefore, with
that certain knowledge, those in the Iraqi military will need to think
hard about whether it would be in their interest to follow his
instructions to commit war crimes by using WMD -- and then pay a
severe price for that action. The United States will make clear at the
outset that those who are not guilty of atrocities can play a role in
the new Iraq. But if WMD is used all bets are off.
I believe many in the Iraqi Armed Forces despise Saddam Hussein, and
want to see him go as much as the rest of the world does. Those who
may not despise him, but decide they would prefer to survive, may
desert and try to blend into the civilian population or escape the
country. This is what happened in Panama, when it became clear that
Noriega was certain to be on his way out.
Some say that Saddam might succeed in provoking an Israeli response
this time -- possibly a nuclear response -- and that this would set
the Middle East aflame.
We are concerned about the Iraqi regime attacking a number of its
neighbors, and with good reason: Saddam Hussein has a history of doing
so. Iraq has attacked Bahrain, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia. Iraq is a threat to its neighbors. We will consult with all of
our allies and friends in the region on how to deal with this threat.
But the fact that they have blackmailed their neighbors makes the case
for action stronger. If we do nothing, that blackmail will eventually
become blackmail with weapons of mass destruction -- with
significantly new consequences for the world.
Some have said the U.S. could get bogged down in a long-term military
occupation, and want to know what the plan is for a post-Saddam Iraq?
That is a fair question. It is likely that international forces would
have to be in Iraq for a period of time, to help a new transitional
Iraqi government get on its feet and create conditions where the Iraqi
people would be able to choose a new government and achieve
self-determination. But that burden is a small one, when balanced
against the risks of not acting.
In Afghanistan, our approach was that Afghanistan belongs to the
Afghans -- we did not and do not aspire to own it or run it. The same
would be true of Iraq.
In Afghanistan, the U.S. and coalition countries helped create
conditions so that the Afghan people could exercise their right of
self-government. Throughout the Bonn process and the Loya Jirga
process, a new president was chosen, a new cabinet sworn-in, and a
transitional government, representative of the Afghan people, was
established to lead the nation.
If the President were to make the decision to liberate Iraq, with
coalition partners, it would help the Iraqi people establish a
government that would be a single country, that did not threaten its
neighbors, the United States, or the world with aggression and weapons
of mass destruction, and that would respect the rights of its diverse
population.
Iraq has an educated population that has been brutally and viciously
repressed by Saddam Hussein's regime. He has kept power not by
building loyalty, but by instilling fear -- in his people, his
military and the government bureaucracy. I suspect that there would be
substantial defections once it became clear that Saddam Hussein was
finished. Moreover, there are numerous free Iraqi leaders -- both
inside Iraq and abroad -- who would play a role in establishing that
new free Iraqi government. So there is no shortage of talent available
to lead and rehabilitate a free Iraq.
In terms of economic rehabilitation, Iraq has an advantage over
Afghanistan. A free Iraq would be less dependent on international
assistance, and could conceivably get back on its feet faster, because
Iraq has a marketable commodity -- oil.
Some have raised concerns that other countries elsewhere in the world
might take advantage of the fact that the U.S. in tied up in Iraq, and
use that as an opportunity to invade neighbors or cause other
mischief.
There is certainly a risk that some countries might underestimate our
capability to handle Iraq and stop their aggression at the same time.
But let there be no doubt: we have that capability.
Last year, we fashioned a new defense strategy, which established that
we will and do have the capability to near simultaneously:
-- Defend the U.S. homeland;
-- Undertake a major regional conflict and win decisively -- including
occupying a country and changing their regime;
-- If necessary, swiftly defeat another aggressor in another theater;
and
-- Simultaneously conduct a number of lesser contingencies -- such as
Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.
The United States can do the above, if called upon to do so.
Another argument is that acting without provocation by Iraq would
violate international law.
That is untrue. The right to self-defense is a part of the U.N.
Charter. Customary international law has long provided for the right
of anticipatory self-defense -- to stop an attack before it happens.
In addition, he is in violation of multiple U.N. Security Council
resolutions. Those concerned about the integrity of international law
should focus on their attention his brazen defiance of the U.N.
Some ask: What has changed to warrant action now?
What has changed is our experience on September 11th. What has changed
is our appreciation of our vulnerability -- and the risks the U.S.
faces from terrorist networks and terrorist states armed with weapons
of mass destruction.
What has not changed is Saddam Hussein's drive to acquire these
weapons. Every approach the U.N. has taken to stop Iraq's drive for
WMD has failed. In 1998, after Iraq had again kicked out U.N.
inspectors, President Clinton came to the Pentagon and said (quote):
"If [Saddam] fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some
ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to
develop his weapons of mass destruction ... and continue to ignore the
solemn commitment he made ... he will conclude that the international
community has lost its will. He will conclude that he can go right on
and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction ... The
stakes could not be higher. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll
use that arsenal." (unquote)
At the time, the U.S. massed forces in the Persian Gulf, ready to
strike. At the last minute, Iraq relented and allowed U.N. inspectors
to return. But predictably, they kicked them out again 10 months
later. They have not been allowed to return since. He has not only
[not] paid a price for that defiance, he has been rewarded for his
defiance of the U.N. by increased trade from a large group of U.N.
member nations.
If, in 1998, Saddam Hussein posed the grave threat that President
Clinton correctly described, then he most certainly poses a vastly
greater danger today, after four years without inspectors on the
ground to challenge his WMD procurement and development efforts. To
those who still ask -- that is what has changed!
Some have asked what are the incentives for Iraq to comply -- is there
is anything the Iraqi regime could do to forestall military action? Or
is he finished either way?
Our objective is gaining Iraq's compliance. Our objective is an Iraq
that does not menace its neighbors, does not pursue WMD, does not
oppress its people or threaten the United States. The President set
forth in his speech what an Iraqi regime that wanted peace would do.
Everything we know about the character and record of the current Iraqi
regime indicates that it is highly unlikely to do the things the
President has said it must do. So long as Saddam Hussein is leading
that country, to expect otherwise is, as the President put it, to
"hope against the evidence." If Saddam Hussein is in a corner, it is
because he has put himself there. One choice he has is to take his
family and key leaders and seek asylum elsewhere. Surely one of the
180- plus counties would take his regime -- possibly Belarus.
Some ask: Does the U.S. needs U.N. support?
The President has asked the U.N. Security Council to act because it is
the U.N. Security Council that is being defied, disobeyed and made
less relevant by the Iraqi regime's defiance. There have already been
16 U.N. resolutions, every one of which Saddam Hussein has ignored.
There is no shortage of U.N. resolutions. What there is, is a shortage
of consequences for Saddam's ongoing defiance of those 16 U.N.
resolutions. The President has made the case that it is dangerous for
the United Nations to be made irrelevant by the Iraqi regime.
As the President put it in his address last week, "All the world now
faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.
Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast
aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose
of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"
But the President has also been clear that all options are on the
table. The only option President Bush has ruled out is to do nothing.
Mr. Chairman, as the President has made clear, this is a critical
moment -- for our country and for the world. Our resolve is being put
to the test. It is a test that, unfortunately, the world's free
nations have failed before in recent history -- with terrible
consequences.
Long before the Second World War, Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf
indicating what he intended to do. But the hope was that maybe he
would not do what he said. Between 35 and 60 million people died
because of a series of fatal miscalculations. He might have been
stopped early -- at a minimal cost of lives -- had the vast majority
of the world's leaders not decided at the time that the risks of
acting were greater than the risks of not acting.
Today, we must decide whether the risks of acting are greater than the
risks of not acting. Saddam Hussein has made his intentions clear. He
has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and his
neighbors. He has demonstrated an intention to take the territory of
his neighbors. He has launched ballistic missiles against U.S. allies
and others in the region. He plays host to terrorist networks. He pays
rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel -- like those who
killed five Americans at the Hebrew University earlier this year. He
is hostile to the United States, because we have denied him the
ability he has sought to impose his will on his neighbors. He has
said, in no uncertain terms, that he would use weapons of mass
destruction against the United States. He has, at this moment,
stockpiles chemical and biological weapons, and is pursuing nuclear
weapons. If he demonstrates the capability to deliver them to our
shores, the world would be changed. Our people would be at great risk.
Our willingness to be engaged in the world, our willingness to project
power to stop aggression, our ability to forge coalitions for
multilateral action, could all be under question. And many lives could
be lost.
We need to decide as a people how we feel about that. Do the risks of
taking action to stop that threat outweigh these risks of living in
the world we see? Or is the risk of doing nothing greater than the
risk of acting? That is the question President Bush has posed to the
Congress, to the American people and to the world community.
The question comes down to this: how will the history of this era be
recorded? When we look back on previous periods of our history, we see
there have been many bookswritten about threats and attacks that were
not anticipated:
-- "At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor"
-- "December 7, 1941: The Day the Admirals Slept Late"
-- "Pearl Harbor: Final Judgment"
-- "From Munich to Pearl Harbor"
-- "While England Slept"
-- "The Cost of Failure"
The list of such books is endless. And, unfortunately, in the past
year, historians have added to that body of literature -- there are
already books out on the September 11th attacks and why they were not
prevented. As we meet today, Congressional committees are trying to
determine why that tragic event was not prevented.
Each is an attempt by the authors to "connect the dots" -- to
determine what happened, and why it was not possible to figure out
that it was going to happen.
Our job today -- the President's, the Congress' and the U.N.'s is to
connect the dots before the fact -- to anticipate vastly more lethal
attacks before they happens -- and to make the right decision as to
whether we should take preventive action -- before it is too late.
We are on notice -- each of us. Each has a solemn responsibility to do
everything in our power to ensure that, when the history of this
period is written, the books won't ask why we slept -- to ensure that
history will instead record that on September 11th the American people
were awakened to the impending dangers -- and that those entrusted
with the safety of the American people made the right decisions and
saved our nation, and the world, from 21st century threats.
President Bush is determined to do just that.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)