Sarbanes' Statement on the War in Iraq

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES (D-MD)
"THE WAR IN IRAQ"
June 22, 2006

The Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2007 has now been under consideration on the Senate floor for more than a week. Much of that time has been devoted to discussion of Iraq, which casts a long shadow over every decision we are called to make. I regret that there has been such great unwillingness, until now, to have this issue freely debated on the floor of the Senate, and I commend the floor managers for allowing us to fulfill our constitutional responsibility. If ever there was a time for a resolute and reasoned assessment of our policy in Iraq, this is it.

In undertaking unilateral military action to remove Saddam, the administration chose to pursue a costly policy that has seriously undermined our ability to focus on and deal effectively with the urgent national-security challenges we face. Turning its back on 50 years of bipartisan consensus on the need to work collectively and cooperatively through multilateral institutions--a consensus that carried us through the darkest years of the Cold War--this administration insisted on a go-it-alone strategy that made only minimal gestures toward diplomacy. Pushing aside the many diplomatic, economic and political resources at his disposal, the President squandered the vast outpouring of support that resulted from the tragic events of 9/11. His policies have divided us not only from the vast population of the Muslim and developing world, whose support is more important now than ever in the fight against terrorism, but also from many of our traditional friends and allies in Europe and Asia.

More than 3 years ago I took the Senate floor and posed this question: ``Are we going to seek to exercise our power in cooperation, in coordination with others, which in the current context means working through the United Nations; or are we going to move down the path of asserting a unilateral preemptive prerogative, in effect, asserting our right to do what we want anywhere, anytime, to anyone?'' I say now that the administration made a grievous mistake in pursuing the second path, and thus today we find ourselves forced to deal with the consequences. Mr. President, I call to the attention of my colleagues my remarks of October 9, 2002.

Had the United States taken that more prudent course, we would find ourselves in a different, and, I would argue, immeasurably stronger position than we are in today. Before the invasion began, we had investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency on the ground in Iraq, where they were tracking down and following up all reports of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. and British aircraft were enforcing two U.N.-backed no-fly zones, one to protect the Kurds in the north, and another to protect Shiites in the south. In effect, we had Saddam Hussein in a corner, and we were keeping him there with the blessing of the international community.

The President chose instead to take a reckless and irresponsible gamble. We can count up the number of deaths, we can count up the number of dollars, we can count up the number of injuries from which people will never recover, but none of this begins to account for the true costs to our Nation. We have lost more than 2,500 courageous and dedicated men and women--a tragedy for them and their families, and also for the nation, because they represented the promise and hope of our future. This is not to mention the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, women and children alike, who were caught in the crossfire. We have diminished our standing in the eyes of the world, and having declined to use the tools of diplomacy at our disposal, we now find their effectiveness diminished. This military action has clouded our vision and distorted our priorities to the point that the entire question of national security must now be debated through the prism of Iraq.

With our diplomatic resources focused overwhelmingly on Iraq, we have undermined our ability to achieve national security objectives we know to be critical. Today the challenge in Afghanistan is growing, not receding. More than in the past, al Qaeda is an international phenomenon that adapts to local conditions, making its detection and destruction ever more difficult. The nuclear challenge posed by Iran is gaining momentum at the same time that our presence in Iraq immeasurably complicates the problems of dealing effectively with Iran, and North Korea has raised its own nuclear challenge to a new level.

Our country's standing in the world community has been diminished on numerous fronts by the profoundly misguided invasion of Iraq and our continuing failure to meet the goals we set for ourselves. We have seriously undermined working relations with our traditional partners and allies, which the President's trip to Vienna has yet again put on vivid display. Sixteen of the original 37 members of the coalition which the administration touted have withdrawn their troops, Japan being only the most recent to announce its departure. Of those who remain, only the United Kingdom has more than 5,000 soldiers on the ground.

This is to say nothing of the toll Iraq has taken at home. There are thousands who have been disabled by serious war-related injuries and trauma. Hundreds of thousands of families have been torn apart by lengthy and unplanned Guard and reserve duty, often creating substantial financial hardship. Our National Guard, thus stretched, is less able to render assistance in the situations it was designed to address. We have had to divert hard-pressed resources from urgent domestic priorities, the recovery from Hurricane Katrina among them.

Yet the administration refuses to face these realities. When at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last fall I asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, referring to Iraq, ``Do you think five years from now, some American forces will have come out?'' She said, ``Senator, I don't want to speculate.'' Even when asked, ``What about 10 years from now?'' she refused to rule out the prospect that our troops would still be on the ground in Iraq. Her response revealed the administration's adamant refusal to think through to the consequences of the action, which has characterized our policy in Iraq from the beginning.

It is long past time to face the situation squarely and undertake a fundamental redirection of the policy before more damage is done. The war not only has taken a terrible toll in terms of lives and hopes for the future; it has diverted our attention from the real and urgent threats to our national security and compromised our ability to deal with them. We should not be pursuing an open-ended commitment in Iraq. It was a war that need never have begun. By failing to offer to a viable strategy to bring it to an end, the administration does a grave disservice to our Nation.


	Previous Page \| Next Page \| Foreign Relations \| What's News



STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES (D-MD) "THE WAR IN IRAQ" June 22, 2006 The Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2007 has now been under consideration on the Senate floor for more than a week. Much of that time has been devoted to discussion of Iraq, which casts a long shadow over every decision we are called to make. I regret that there has been such great unwillingness, until now, to have this issue freely debated on the floor of the Senate, and I commend the floor managers for allowing us to fulfill our constitutional responsibility. If ever there was a time for a resolute and reasoned assessment of our policy in Iraq, this is it. In undertaking unilateral military action to remove Saddam, the administration chose to pursue a costly policy that has seriously undermined our ability to focus on and deal effectively with the urgent national-security challenges we face. Turning its back on 50 years of bipartisan consensus on the need to work collectively and cooperatively through multilateral institutions--a consensus that carried us through the darkest years of the Cold War--this administration insisted on a go-it-alone strategy that made only minimal gestures toward diplomacy. Pushing aside the many diplomatic, economic and political resources at his disposal, the President squandered the vast outpouring of support that resulted from the tragic events of 9/11. His policies have divided us not only from the vast population of the Muslim and developing world, whose support is more important now than ever in the fight against terrorism, but also from many of our traditional friends and allies in Europe and Asia. More than 3 years ago I took the Senate floor and posed this question: ``Are we going to seek to exercise our power in cooperation, in coordination with others, which in the current context means working through the United Nations; or are we going to move down the path of asserting a unilateral preemptive prerogative, in effect, asserting our right to do what we want anywhere, anytime, to anyone?'' I say now that the administration made a grievous mistake in pursuing the second path, and thus today we find ourselves forced to deal with the consequences. Mr. President, I call to the attention of my colleagues my remarks of October 9, 2002. Had the United States taken that more prudent course, we would find ourselves in a different, and, I would argue, immeasurably stronger position than we are in today. Before the invasion began, we had investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency on the ground in Iraq, where they were tracking down and following up all reports of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. and British aircraft were enforcing two U.N.-backed no-fly zones, one to protect the Kurds in the north, and another to protect Shiites in the south. In effect, we had Saddam Hussein in a corner, and we were keeping him there with the blessing of the international community. The President chose instead to take a reckless and irresponsible gamble. We can count up the number of deaths, we can count up the number of dollars, we can count up the number of injuries from which people will never recover, but none of this begins to account for the true costs to our Nation. We have lost more than 2,500 courageous and dedicated men and women--a tragedy for them and their families, and also for the nation, because they represented the promise and hope of our future. This is not to mention the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, women and children alike, who were caught in the crossfire. We have diminished our standing in the eyes of the world, and having declined to use the tools of diplomacy at our disposal, we now find their effectiveness diminished. This military action has clouded our vision and distorted our priorities to the point that the entire question of national security must now be debated through the prism of Iraq. With our diplomatic resources focused overwhelmingly on Iraq, we have undermined our ability to achieve national security objectives we know to be critical. Today the challenge in Afghanistan is growing, not receding. More than in the past, al Qaeda is an international phenomenon that adapts to local conditions, making its detection and destruction ever more difficult. The nuclear challenge posed by Iran is gaining momentum at the same time that our presence in Iraq immeasurably complicates the problems of dealing effectively with Iran, and North Korea has raised its own nuclear challenge to a new level. Our country's standing in the world community has been diminished on numerous fronts by the profoundly misguided invasion of Iraq and our continuing failure to meet the goals we set for ourselves. We have seriously undermined working relations with our traditional partners and allies, which the President's trip to Vienna has yet again put on vivid display. Sixteen of the original 37 members of the coalition which the administration touted have withdrawn their troops, Japan being only the most recent to announce its departure. Of those who remain, only the United Kingdom has more than 5,000 soldiers on the ground. This is to say nothing of the toll Iraq has taken at home. There are thousands who have been disabled by serious war-related injuries and trauma. Hundreds of thousands of families have been torn apart by lengthy and unplanned Guard and reserve duty, often creating substantial financial hardship. Our National Guard, thus stretched, is less able to render assistance in the situations it was designed to address. We have had to divert hard-pressed resources from urgent domestic priorities, the recovery from Hurricane Katrina among them. Yet the administration refuses to face these realities. When at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last fall I asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, referring to Iraq, ``Do you think five years from now, some American forces will have come out?'' She said, ``Senator, I don't want to speculate.'' Even when asked, ``What about 10 years from now?'' she refused to rule out the prospect that our troops would still be on the ground in Iraq. Her response revealed the administration's adamant refusal to think through to the consequences of the action, which has characterized our policy in Iraq from the beginning. It is long past time to face the situation squarely and undertake a fundamental redirection of the policy before more damage is done. The war not only has taken a terrible toll in terms of lives and hopes for the future; it has diverted our attention from the real and urgent threats to our national security and compromised our ability to deal with them. We should not be pursuing an open-ended commitment in Iraq. It was a war that need never have begun. By failing to offer to a viable strategy to bring it to an end, the administration does a grave disservice to our Nation. ###