 |
| Statement of Congresswoman Heather Wilson Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force against Iraq |
October 08, 2002 |
| |
| October 8, 2002
The President has asked the Congress for the authority to use force against Iraq. This week the Congress will consider a resolution giving him that authority. I will be voting in favor of the Joint Resolution.
There is a very high standard and a narrow set of circumstances that would cause me to vote to authorize the use of force other than in self-defense against an armed attack against the United States or its allies.
Over the last month, I have listened to briefings and testimony, reviewed evidence, read reports and sought out independent experts to ask questions about Iraq and its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program. I believe that, if left unchecked, it is likely that Saddam Hussein will cause these weapons to be used against the American people. The effect of such an attack would be devastating. We cannot wait for him to strike first.
The evidence that Iraq has and is further developing weapons of mass destruction is convincing. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas and anthrax. We believe he may have other deadly diseases he is making into weapons. Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons program before the Gulf War and is seeking to develop nuclear weapons again.
Saddam Hussein’s intent is more difficult to discern. I believe the evidence of his ultimate intent to use these weapons or cause them to be used against the American people is strong enough that we cannot afford to ignore it. Iraq is developing missiles that can hit neighboring states and is building unmanned aerial vehicles to spread chemical and biological agents. I am concerned that Iraq is exploring ways to use these aerial vehicles for missions targeting the United States.
Saddam’s aggressiveness, hatred of the United States and willingness to use chemical weapons is clearly established. Iraq has invaded its neighbors and has used chemical weapons against its own people. He is a brutal dictator and a tyrant. Being a brutal tyrant does not justify the use of force by America; the world has plenty of tyrants. But his past behavior provides context and credence to the assessment of his intent.
We are a moral people. We do not covet anyone else’s territory or resources. We do not seek to destroy other civilizations or involve ourselves in the internal affairs of other states. The decision to authorize the use of force in advance of any attack is a grave one which I do not take lightly.
One of the defining characteristics of international relations in the twentieth century was the steadily declining legitimacy of the use of force by states other than in self-defense. This trend enhanced the stability and order of the system of sovereign states that has developed since the sixteenth century.
At the zenith of our military power, wielding enormous political, economic and social influence, America must not squander our moral authority by yielding to the temptation to justify using our military power preemptively other than in highly unusual circumstances. While the current threat posed by Iraq meets that high standard, we should be careful to acknowledge just how high the standard is. Otherwise, our rhetoric and actions could be used to justify erosion of the general prohibition of the use of force by other states, undermining the stability of the system we seek to bolster.
I am voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq because it possesses and is further developing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver those weapons and because I believe that Iraq intends to use those weapons against Americans.
We should not go to war because another country represses its own minorities. Repression of minorities is a widespread human rights violation.
We should not go to war because another country has failed to account for missing prisoners of war, as disdainful as that is.
We should not go to war because another country simply possesses weapons of mass destruction. There are at least 12 states that already possess nuclear weapons, including some of our allies as well as former adversaries. Possession of these weapons alone is insufficient justification.
We should not go to war because a country is trading outside of a sanctions regime.
Iraq is doing all of these things. But the set of circumstances that justifies this authorization to use force is very narrow and is related to Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear weapons program and Saddam’s intent to use those weapons against Americans.
There is no obligation to wait for him to strike first. We have a limited right of anticipatory self-defense and we must exercise it in this case.
We cannot make a clear statement about the imminence of the threat from Saddam nor is it likely we would ever be able to until it was too late. In that sense, the threats of the twenty-first century are unlike those of the past. With these weapons, imminence is imperceptible and the risk of inaction is incalculable.
The joint resolution supports the President’s diplomatic efforts to build a coalition to confront Iraq. Iraq has defied resolutions of the UN Security Council with impunity. The President was right to go to the UN and make the case for action against Iraq. In some respects, this current crisis is a test of the UN’s continued relevance. If the UN is not willing to act collectively, we will have to build a coalition of states outside of the UN to act. This is, without doubt, a turning point for the United Nations as an institution.
Our top foreign policy priority must be to win the war on terrorism. There are ninety-plus states cooperating in that effort - for the most part involving their law enforcement and intelligence services. By building international support for any action against Iraq we can minimize the possibility that any of those states will distance themselves from this cooperation. Perhaps more importantly for the long term, military action against Iraq is bound to stir opposition among some in the Middle East. It will be easier to manage resentment if we build a coalition of states, including states in the Gulf Region.
While much of our attention has been focused on whether we should confront Iraq, in making my decision to support this resolution, I have also considered whether we can.
Over the last year our military forces have been at increased operational tempo fighting a war in Afghanistan and defending the homeland. While Saddam’s forces are considerably smaller than they were during the Gulf War, so are ours. I have been repeatedly assured by our military commanders and our civilian defense leadership that we have the forces, munitions, logistics, communications systems, spare parts, and the people it will take to prevail. They are trained and combat readiness levels are restored or being restored.
I have also been assured that our military strategy will be tied to our political objective. I opposed the use of force in Kosovo because we had a military strategy that used limited air power to achieve a largely humanitarian mission to prevent door-to-door ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I have been assured that we will act with the full power of the U.S. military, giving them the force necessary to win and come home again.
The Congress authorizes the President to use force if all other means fail. We do not command the military or instruct the diplomats. I hope that, faced with the military might of a united coalition led by the United States, Saddam will choose to end his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program and disarm. I hope this will not require military action, but it may.
People who have served in uniform are often the most reluctant to go to war - and I am no exception to that general rule. We know the risks; we know the limitations; and we know many of the likely participants. There are great risks in this potential action. But those risks will not diminish over time. And there are also great risks of inaction.
We did not choose this challenge. But, faced with it, we cannot turn away. |
|
|
|