The September 11 terrorist attacks demonstrated
the importance of a strong military and superior homeland defense.
They also illustrated that the United States must develop new
strategies to deal with the twin threats of the 21st century:
international terrorism and the proliferation of ballistic missiles
and weapons of mass destruction.
The strategy outlined by President Bush has been
to stop threats before we are attacked. Based on the aggressiveness
and brutality of the Baathist regime, and widely credited reports
of Saddam Hussein’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction
and ballistic missiles, Congress in 2002 overwhelmingly passed
a resolution authorizing the President to use force to: 1) defend
the national security of the United States against the threat
posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all Iraq-related U.N. Security Council
resolutions.
At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam had agreed
to terms contained in a cease-fire resolution approved by the
United Nations. For the 12 years that followed, he willfully and
repeatedly violated those terms, and the United Nations responded
by passing more resolutions, revamping sanctions, calling for
new inspections, and vowing unspecified “consequences”
if Saddam continued his violations. Time after time, Saddam refused
to comply with the United Nations. Ultimately, military action
was the only remaining option available to eliminate the threat
posed by his regime.
Some question the decision to remove Saddam Hussein,
given that large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons
were not found. But the inability to find WMD stockpiles now does
not mean that Iraq didn’t have access to such weapons or
that, under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was not a grave and gathering
danger. While it is troubling that our intelligence failed in
its assessment of Hussein’s weapons programs, the fact remains
that we know with certainty he once had them, and he used them
twice. The gassing of the Iranians and Iraqi Kurds showed the
lengths to which he was willing to go to achieve his objectives.
The Bush administration, supported by a large coalition, pursued
a responsible policy given all of the information it had regarding
Saddam’s history, aggressive intentions, violations of international
law, and previously known capabilities.
Even if his capabilities in 2003 were overestimated,
it is still the case that Saddam retained the ability to restart
his WMD programs in the event he could wait out the international
community and manage to hold onto power. Civilized people can
be glad he didn’t. Today the United States and its coalition
allies have undertaken an ambitious mission: the fostering of
a free and prosperous Arab democracy in the heart of the Middle
East. We seek to offer freedom and hope to a world where tyranny
and terror are the only things many people have ever known.
To be sure, the obstacles we face are considerable,
but the progress the Iraqi people have achieved thus far is undeniable.
In the span of two and half years what was a tyrannical, evil
regime has become a nascent democracy. The transfer of power to
the Iraqi government in June of 2004, followed by national elections
in January of 2005, the drafting of a new constitution, its approval
in October of 2005 by the Iraqi people, and the successful election
of representatives for a new Iraqi government in December of 2005
are significant political achievements.
In addition to the political advances that are being
made, Iraq’s military and police forces are gaining new
capabilities and assuming more responsibility for their own security.
U.S. forces are being embedded in Iraqi units to provide battlefield
advice and assistance during combat operations led by the Iraqi
military. There are now about 138,000 U.S. forces in Iraq, down
from around 160,000 at the time of the December elections. American
commanders have determined that combat forces could be reduced
further in coming months, based on the progress of Iraq's Security
Force and its ability to provide security and political stability
for the new government.
Nevertheless, it is important that all decisions
regarding U.S. strategy in Iraq continue to be based upon conditions
on the ground -- not on artificial calendars set by politicians
in Washington. I believe it is a strategic miscalculation to telegraph
to America’s enemies any limitation on how long we’re
willing to stay in Iraq. Setting schedules and timetables will
only embolden the insurgents who think they can outlast us in
this fight.
The debate concerning U.S. policy in Iraq will surely
continue. It is my hope that this important discussion can be
conducted in an atmosphere of mutual respect and minimal political
grandstanding. I will continue voicing my support for our troops
and their mission; and I am confident that members of both parties
can continue working together to achieve victory in Iraq.
Perhaps the greatest threat the United States faces
today lies in the nexus between terrorist groups, weapons of mass
destruction, and states that, either because of ideological conformity
with terrorists, or simply out of convenience, would be willing
to unite the two. In that regard, North Korea’s and Iran’s
nuclear weapons programs are significant challenges facing the
international community.
In North Korea, the United States and the international
community are faced with a despotic regime that already possesses
nuclear weapons. North Korea has violated every agreement it has
ever signed regarding its nuclear programs, including the 1994
Agreed Framework that awarded generous economic incentives in
return for a promise to abandon its nuclear weapons program. It
is clear that negotiating with Kim Jong Il has failed and resulted
in a nuclear North Korea that is now attempting to extort even
more from the international community.
There are a number of measures still available
to deal with North Korea short of military action. Once implemented,
these actions will likely create an environment in which North
Korea will either have to agree to halt and dismantle its nuclear
program, or face economic collapse. This approach should combine
economic isolation of the North Korean government by the United
States and allies while reaching out to the North Korean people.
With respect to Iran: This country has become the primary ideological,
financial, and logistical supporter of terrorists seeking to attack
the West and their fellow Muslims in the name of a distorted version
of Islam. Perhaps most disturbingly, Iran is also on the verge
of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Iran’s decision to resume uranium enrichment
activities represents a significant threat to the international
community. The administration has reiterated its commitment to
pursuing a diplomatic solution to the danger posed by Iran’s
ambition to become a nuclear power. The International Atomic Energy
Agency has reported Iran to the United Nations Security Council,
where member states will have the opportunity to use political
and economic sanctions to pressure it to honor its obligations
under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty not to engage in such
activity. That diplomatic process is being pursued.
If Iran continues to develop its nuclear capability,
the United States and its allies always reserve the right to employ
whatever means are necessary to prevent it from becoming a danger
to the international community. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
has already stated his intention to “wipe Israel off the
map” and promised a “world without America.”
The United States and its allies must consider all options to
respond to this threat.
The present regime has shown itself to be a potentially
destabilizing force in the Middle East. I support the administration’s
effort to hold Iran accountable for its actions, and support measures
to marginalize the most powerful and dangerous elements of the
current government. I believe the United States should also work
with the democratic reformers within Iran to bring about a regime
change in that country that will ensure long-term security and
stability in the region.
The proliferation of ballistic missiles, which can
carry nuclear, chemical, or biological payloads, is also of serious
concern. Roughly two dozen countries, including North Korea and
Iran, now have or are developing ballistic missiles. These countries
have ballistic missiles capable of striking our allies and U.S.
forces abroad, and are developing longer-range capabilities. And
we believe that North Korea’s Taepo-Dong II missile is capable
of reaching the continental United States. Unfortunately the United
States does not yet have an operational defense against an accidental
or deliberate missile launch, and is vulnerable to blackmail intended
to freeze us into inaction by the very threat of missile attack.
President Bush is determined to end this vulnerability
and indeed we have made great progress toward that objective.
In June 2002, he withdrew the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM) Treaty, which prevented the United States from developing
and deploying missile defenses. I led the Senate fight to scrap
that obsolete treaty with a country that no longer existed –
the Soviet Union – and deploy missile defenses as soon as
possible. Building on the Initial Operational Capability originally
declared in FY 2005, the Missile Defense Agency will continue
developing, deploying, and integrating ground-based interceptors,
sea-based interceptors, additional Patriot units, and sensors
based on land, at sea, and in space.
U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and building
a missile defense are just two aspects of a new overall approach
to strategic security, which also includes major reductions in
the U.S. nuclear arsenal. As we decrease the size of that arsenal,
it will be important to test our remaining nuclear weapons to
ensure their safety and reliability. Without actual nuclear testing,
it will become difficult to maintain, let alone modernize, our
reduced nuclear arsenal.
As our men and women in uniform courageously fight
the enemies of freedom throughout the world, we must ensure that
they have the resources necessary to carry out their missions.
Congress has approved successive increases of the U.S. defense
budget over the past four years. These increases have provided
pay raises for military personnel, and additional funding for
health care for active duty personnel and their families, counterterrorism
programs to protect the U.S. homeland, research on missile defense,
and the procurement of badly needed defense equipment. Congress
has also passed emergency appropriations to help support continued
operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This year, Congress will be working closely with
top military commanders to ensure that the troops serving in Iraq
and Afghanistan have the most effective force protection gear
available. The Defense Appropriations bill that was signed into
law on December 30, 2005 included an additional $1.4 billion over
the President’s budget request for force protection gear.
This includes money for up-armored HMMWVs and add-on ballistic
protection to make them safer, as well as additional funding for
enhanced body armor.
The families of those service men and women who
make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation should also
receive more of our support. The FY 2006 Defense Authorization
Act that was signed into law on January 6, 2006 increased the
fallen hero compensation from $12,000 to $100,000. This payment
is intended to provide immediate assistance to survivors of deceased
members of the armed forces to meet their financial needs during
the period immediately following a member’s death until
other survivor benefits are made available. The Defense Authorization
Act also increased the Service Members’ Group Life Insurance
coverage from $250,000 to $400,000, making the increase retroactive
for deaths that occurred on or after October 7, 2001.
I strongly support the President’s call for
additional increases in defense spending over the next five years
to further improve conditions for our men and women in uniform
and to give them the training and equipment they will need to
protect the United States and defeat terrorism.
If we are to identify and defend against future
terrorist attacks, we must have a first-rate intelligence capability.
That requires a reevaluation of our intelligence-gathering activities
worldwide. The United States had no direct warning of the September
11 attack, though it was planned far in advance. As a senior member
of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I participated
in a joint Senate-House investigation to identify shortcomings
in our intelligence community and develop solutions to fix them.
We held a series of hearings and ultimately generated legislation
to reorganize U.S. intelligence agencies.
With the passing of sweeping intelligence reform
legislation in 2004, the United States has undertaken the difficult
task of reorganizing and optimizing its intelligence gathering,
analysis, and dissemination functions. Congress must provide strong
oversight to ensure that the intelligence community not only reorganizes
but finally reforms the practices and attitudes that have undermined
our capabilities for too long.
It is imperative that the military, intelligence,
and law-enforcement agencies be provided the tools they need to
effectively respond to this threat. It is also critical that the
intelligence and law-enforcement agencies that gather intelligence
do a better job of maintaining the security of their intelligence
product. The disclosure of classified information damages U.S.
security and hinders our ability to obtain information about future
terrorist attacks.
The U.S. government has no higher responsibility
than protecting its citizens. I will continue to fight to ensure
that our defenses are strong and our military is equipped to defend
our interests at home and abroad.
As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security,
I invite you to visit the Subcommittee’s
website – as well as the border
and immigration, crime and justice,
and terrorism sections of this site
– to learn about additional efforts I’ve undertaken
to better control our nation’s borders, fight terrorism,
and improve homeland security.
