WASHINGTON,
D.C. -- Thousands of constituents have contacted me to express concern
over a possible U.S. attack on Iraq. I agree that President Bush should
not unilaterally undertake such an action.
At
this time, I am vigorously opposed to war with Iraq. I strongly believe
that, at a minimum, President Bush must consult the American people and
seek the express consent of the Congress should he decide that military
action against Iraq is necessary to guarantee our national security.
In July, I joined a number of my colleagues in writing to the President
to demand that he first receive such authorization before any further military
actions in Iraq.
In
addition to obtaining approval from the Congress, the President must take
into account several other factors and answer important questions that
include:
-
The
potential response by our allies and adversaries in the Middle East and
around the world: An attack on Iraq at this time has the potential
to severely destabilize an already inflamed region and may actually endanger
the United States, our brave men and women in military service, and our
allies. A unilateral U.S. decision to attack Iraq may have
the effect of uniting the Arab world, and other important partners in the
ongoing war on terrorism, against us.
-
The
President has yet to present to the Congress or the American people information
that distinguishes Iraq as a unique threat: While Saddam Hussein
is a dangerous dictator who has done terrible things in the past and who
has sought weapons of mass destruction, he is not alone. There are
a number of other nations that fit a similar mold and I have not been given
information that suggests Iraq is any more of a threat than one of those
nations. The notion of attacking a nation that has not committed
an act of aggression against the United States in a unilateral manner,
is contrary to what most Americans and the international community consider
common sense and reasonable policy.
-
Timing:
One recurring question that constituents have asked me is, “why now”?
I am not aware of any information that makes a stronger case for attacking
Iraq now. The Bush Administration has not provided Congress with
new information that demonstrates a new, imminent threat from Iraq to our
nation that warrants a military response.
-
A
successful military action in Iraq cannot be guaranteed:
There is no doubt that the United States will ultimately be the victor
in a military confrontation with Iraq, but at what cost? In recent years,
the conflicts in which the U.S. has been engaged have been almost bloodless.
However, once an attack on Iraq is launched complete with hundreds of thousands
of ground troops, Saddam Hussein will have no incentive to refrain from
using his chemical and biological as well as conventional weapons against
our troops and against Israel. Casualties are inevitable. I am not willing
to risk the lives of our brave service personnel in Iraq at this time.
My position has been reinforced by testimony at a recent congressional
hearing about an investigation, which demonstrated that 800,000 chemical
and biological warfare protection suits purchased by the Pentagon have
been proven faulty and, while 1.2 million new suits have been purchased,
no one knows for sure where they are because Department of Defense inventory
control is haphazard or non-existent.
-
What
is the post-Saddam scenario? Removing Saddam Hussein is one thing;
guaranteeing a successful and stable successor government is another. I
have not been made aware of any credible or likely successor government
that suggests a better life for the people of Iraq or a guarantee of greater
security for our nation and the world. If the U.S. can’t easily bring about
stability in Afghanistan, a country in which I supported U.S. intervention,
what will it take to do so in Iraq? How long will the U.S. have to maintain
a presence there?
-
War
with Iraq could over-extend our forces and may undermine the broader goals
of the war on terrorism: The
U.S. now has a presence in several locations around the globe. To what
extent can we afford to commit our assets to Iraq and still continue to
fulfill the other needs involved in our fight against terrorism and homeland
security?
-
The
war with Iraq will cost billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars: The 1991
war with Iraq was largely financed by our allies. If we go it alone this
time, can we afford the billions of dollars it will cost?
While
I do believe that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous individual and that he
must be contained, I believe serious discussion about a major military
mobilization against Iraq at this time is inappropriate. Instead,
the President and the Congress should be investing time, energy and resources
in strengthening our international partnerships and working through the
United Nations. Dangerous technologies and weapons of mass destruction
are likely to remain in existence forever. The President should now
be focusing his efforts on ways to bring the international community together
to condemn their proliferation and those rogue nations and terrorist organizations
who would consider their use.
War
represents a failure of politics and diplomacy and is always the last resort.
War brings with it death, brutality, and emotional and economic losses
that no person or nation should ever experience. I will continue
to do all that I can to prevent unilateral military action against Iraq
by the President and will do my best to share your concerns on this issue
with my colleagues in Congress. |