Rep. Holt
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday during a pancake breakfast at a firehouse in my hometown, one of my constituents approached me. “Why have we gotten into this headlong rush into war,” he asked? “Why haven't we first exhausted all the other possibilities for dealing with Saddam?” His questions reflected both my feelings and those of so many other Americans: Where is the pressing need to send our Nation, our servicemen and women, into a potentially bloody, costly war that could threaten rather than strengthen our national security?
I will vote “no” on this resolution.
It is true that Saddam Hussein has for years presented a threat to his own people, to the Middle East, to the world. His relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is unconscionable. We have a legal and a moral obligation to hold him accountable for his flagrant violation of international law and his maniacal disregard for human decency.
I applaud the President for refocusing international attention on the Iraqi threat. This is something that I have followed with concern since I worked in the State Department 15 years ago on nuclear nonproliferation. However, I believe it is at the least premature, and more likely contrary to our national interest, for Congress to authorize military action against Iraq now.
As I reviewed the arguments for and against this resolution, I found myself returning repeatedly to some basic questions. Would unilateral American military action against Iraq reduce the threat that Saddam Hussein poses? In other words, would a Saddam facing certain destruction be less likely or more likely to unleash his weapons of mass destruction on his neighbors, his own people, or on Americans? Will an attack against Iraq strengthen our greater and more pressing effort to combat al Qaeda and global terrorism? Will it bolster our ability to promote our many other national security interests around the world and make Americans more secure? I believe the answer to all of these questions is a resounding no.
Why should we undertake action that makes more likely the very thing we want to prevent? A cornered Saddam Hussein could release his arsenal of chemical, biological, and possible nuclear weapons on American soldiers or on his neighbors in the region, including Israel. The CIA recently reported that Iraq is much more likely to initiate a chemical or biological attack on the United States if Saddam concludes that a U.S.-led invasion can no longer be deterred.
In addition, I am also concerned that an American invasion of Iraq would send a destabilizing shockwave throughout the Middle East and ignite violent anti-Americanism, giving rise to future threats to our national security. While I have no doubt that we would successfully depose Saddam Hussein, I am concerned that the act of extinguishing Saddam would inflame, rather than diminish, the terrorist threat to the United States. And the ensuing anti-American sentiment could reinvigorate the terrorists' pursuit of the loose nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union--a greater threat than Iraq, I might add, one that America has largely neglected.
The Administration has tried and failed to prove that Saddam's regime is a grave and immediate threat to American security. It has also simply failed to explain to the American public what our responsibilities would be in a post-Saddam Iraq. How will we guarantee the security of our soldiers and the Iraqi people? How will we guarantee the success of a democratic transition? How many hundreds of billions of dollars would it cost to rebuild Iraq?
This resolution would give the President a blank check, in the words of many of my constituents, and would allow him to use Iraq to launch a new military and diplomatic doctrine. By taking unilateral, preemptive military action against Iraq, we would set a dangerous precedent that would threaten the international order. Instead, we can and should take the lead in eliminating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, not by taking unilateral military action. If we consult actively with our allies in the region, with NATO, with the U.N. Security Counsel, we will be able to undertake effective inspections and end Saddam's threat. I do not believe that we need the permission of our allies to take action, but I do believe that we need their partnership to be successful in the long run.
As the world's leading power, we should use the full diplomatic force at our disposal to work with our allies to get inspectors back into Iraq without any preconditions--including access to Saddam's presidential palaces. We can and we will disarm Iraq and end Saddam's threat. The United Nations and the international community may recognize the need to take military action. The American people will understand and be prepared for that possibility. Now, they are not. Now, they are saying that, for the United States, war should and must always be our last resort.
Source: Congressional Record for October 10, 2002