Press Releases
October 11, 2002
Senator Conrad on Authorizing the War in Iraq
October 11, 2002 Floor Statement
Mr. President:
In a just moments we will make one of the most fateful decisions for our country. We will decide if we authorize the President to take this nation to war.
WAR MUST BE A LAST RESORT
As with every momentous debate in this chamber, our deliberations will resonate long into the future. Few decisions will have greater consequences to the people we represent and to the future of our nation.
Before we ask young men and women to put themselves in harm's way, I must be convinced that we have exhausted every other possibility, pursued every other avenue. For me, and I believe for the people I represent, war must be the last resort.
THE MENACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN
As we debate the course this nation will take, some facts are clear and unassailable.
Saddam Hussein is a menace to the whole region of the Middle East, and a vicious tyrant who harms and oppresses his own people. He has waged war against neighboring nations, and he has attacked the people of his own country.
He has acquired chemical and biological weapons. He is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver those weapons using ballistic missiles.
There is no question that Saddam Hussein is ignoring the will of the United Nations, and that he has not honored the agreements he made following the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous force in the world
WE MUST TAKE ACTION
I agree that we must take action. The question is, what course do we take? How do we best protect the national security of our country?
A decade ago in the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein launched a surprise attack on Kuwait, and we rallied a powerful international response to defeat him.
Today we debate a much different scenario. Saddam has not directly threatened his neighbors since the Gulf War. And a recent threat assessment from the Central Intelligence Agency concludes that Iraq is not likely to initiate a chemical or biological attack on the United States.
Yet the President is contemplating a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq with the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein and installing a new regime. Never before in the history of this nation has the Congress voted to authorize a preemptive attack on a country that has not first attacked us or our allies.
AN OPEN-ENDED RESOLUTION
Let me be clear. I do not oppose the use of force against this lawless and dangerous tyrant. But I cannot support the resolution before us as it stands. It is too broad and open-ended, and I do not believe that it is in the national security interest of the United States.
In my judgment, an invasion of Iraq at this time would make the United States less secure rather than more secure. It would make a dangerous world even more dangerous.
THE WAR ON TERRORISM MUST BE OUR FIRST PRIORITY
First, we have unfinished business with the terrorists of al Qaeda. For the past year, we have all agreed that combating al Qaeda was our first priority. News reports just this morning warned us of the danger of renewed terrorist attacks against our country, organized and orchestrated by al Qaeda.
I believe defeating the terrorists who launched the attacks on the United States on September 11th must be our first priority, before we launch a new war on a new front. Yet today, the President asks us to take action against Iraq as a first priority Mr. President, I believe that has the priority wrong.
PRECIPITATING AN ATTACK
Second, a unilateral invasion could prompt the very attack we seek to pre-empt. In just the last few days, the CIA has reported that there is a very low probability that Saddam would launch a biological or chemical attack against the United States or our interests in the region. However, if we launch a unilateral invasion, the risk rises dramatically that a desperate Saddam would use biological and chemical weapons.
Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to former President Bush, wrote that in the wake of an invasion, and I quote, "Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses."
THE DANGERS OF BATTLE IN BAGHDAD
Third, an invasion of Iraq for the purposes of regime change would necessitate a march on Baghdad. Such a course would expose our forces on the ground to serious risks, in hand-to-hand, street-by-street urban warfare in a foreign capital. We would lose much of our advantage in superior air power and technology. The military and civilian casualties could be substantial.
The former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command, retired Marine Corps General Joseph Hoar, testified before Congress, and I quote, "In urban warfare you could run through battalions a day at a time. All our advantages of command and control, technology, mobility...are in part given up." Those are sobering words, Mr. President: "Battalions a day at a time."
DESTABILIZING A VOLATILE REGION
Fourth, a unilateral attack by the United States could destabilize an already volatile and dangerous region, and inflame anti-American interests around the globe. An American invasion could doubtless impact the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The backlash in Arab nations could further energize and deepen anti-American sentiment. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups could gain more willing suicide bombers, and raise even greater financial resources from the wealthy nations of the region.
General Wesley Clark, the Former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, put it succinctly, and I quote: "If we go in unilaterally or without the full weight of the international organizations behind us, if we go in with a very sparse number of allies....we're liable to super-charge recruiting for al Qaeda." Let me repeat that. General Clark warned us: "We're liable to super-charge recruiting for al Qaeda."
SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
Fifth, if this nation asserts that pre-emptive military attacks are justified in this conflict, what are the consequences for other conflicts around the world? Would India or Pakistan claim the same justification in Kashmir, raising the prospect of nuclear war in South Asia? Could China use this precedent to attack Taiwan, potentially drawing the U.S. into a major war with China? Could Russia use this justification to re-occupy parts of the former Soviet Union?
A TREMENDOUS ECONOMIC TOLL
And sixth, while the financial costs of this effort should not drive this debate, we cannot ignore them. The Congressional Budget Office has just estimated that an invasion of Iraq could cost this nation $6 billion to $9 billion a month. That is a significant financial toll at any time, but particularly when we are still engaged in a conflict in Afghanistan. The economic downturn makes this expense even harder to bear.
CBO estimates that the costs of an invasion plus a five-year occupation would reach some $272 billion. How will we pay for this? Does the White House propose new taxes? Or are we to assume that this will be paid for out of the Social Security trust funds? Will we go deeper and deeper into debt? Or does the President suggest cuts in education, highways, or health care?
THE DANGERS OF A LONG OCCUPATION
Which brings me to my final point. If our goal is to topple Saddam, what is our responsibility for the regime that follows?
Forming a new government in Iraq is far from simple. There is no clear successor to Saddam. Iraq is a country filled with competing ethnic groups, religious and tribal factions, with no history of democracy.
I do not want to see our forces mired in a long occupation, in dangerous territory, in a destabilized region, subject to violence within Iraq. I do not want to see the United States responsible for the stability of Iraq, the economy of Iraq, and the political future of that nation.
THE LESSONS OF HISTORY
I began by saying that while I do not oppose the use of force against this dictator, war must be our last resort. I believe history has important lessons for us.
Many other dangerous dictators have acquired weapons of mass destruction, or attempted to. Yet we successfully contained the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea and others without resorting to a pre-emptive first strike. Again and again, we have seen this scenario. A vicious dictator amasses weapons of mass destruction, threatens his neighbors, and threatens the United States.
Always in the past, we have chosen containment and deterrence, not invasion. In the past, we have contained the dictator, rallied international support to isolate him, and together with our allies carried out a disciplined, forceful and effective strategy. We did not launch an invasion.
EFFECTIVE, FORCEFUL CONTAINMENT
Even when the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles just 90 miles off our coastline, we did not invade. Rather, President. Kennedy issued an ultimatum - a successful ultimatum. We demanded the removal of those missiles. We succeeded, and we brought the world back from the brink of a nuclear conflict that might have engulfed the world.
Mr. President, historian Arthur Schlesinger recently asked: "Why not...try the combination of containment and deterrence that won us the Cold War? Saddam is not likely to attack other countries. He knows he would be playing into Bush's hands. Retaliation would be prompt and overwhelming, and Saddam has no interest in suicide. The one situation that might induce him to use his weaponry is a US attack on Iraq. "
The historical lesson is clear. There are disciplined and forceful actions we can take against dictators and aggressors short of invasion, actions that can succeed.
EVIDENCE OF AN IMMINENT ATTACK
Clearly, if Saddam Hussein were to attack this country - or if we had strong evidence that an attack on this country were imminent - we would have every right to defend ourselves. In that case, Saddam should have no doubt that the United States would obliterate him.
If the President has knowledge of an imminent threat from Iraq that contradicts the statement of his CIA Director this week that an attack is unlikely, he should reveal it to this Congress. I believe in protecting our people and our allies from imminent danger. But I believe the President must present stronger evidence to the Congress and the American people before he reverses a strategy that has worked well against dictators around the world. Before this nation strikes first, strikes unilaterally, strikes preemptively, we must know how this threat is different from those that have come before.
SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF FORCE
Inaction and appeasement are not options. We must be prepared to use force to defend our national security interests, with or without the support of the UN. And I support the use of force against Iraq in the following circumstances.
We need no one's permission to fight back when attacked, and force would be fully justified in the case of an Iraqi attack against our country or our allies. Force would also be justified if we were presented with clear and compelling evidence that Saddam was preparing an imminent attack on this nation, or our allies.
Additionally, the use of force would be justified if we were provided with credible evidence that Saddam was linked in any way to the September 11th attack on this nation, or if Saddam were to move to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
Finally, I believe we must be prepared to use force in concert with our allies to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction if Saddam refuses to comply with UN resolutions ordering him to disarm.
I support the use of force when it is in our national security interest. I voted for the Levin amendment to authorize the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein and affirm our right to self defense. I voted for the Durbin amendment to authorize the use of force to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
A PLAN FOR ACTION
For all the reasons I have cited, I believe an invasion of Iraq must be a last resort, not a first response. Instead, I believe we can and should take a phased approach.
First, we should exhaust every option available to us at the U.N. Saddam has defied that body in the past, but the growing U.S. and international pressure, and the imminent threat of military action may give that process new life. Further, our allies will be more willing to join us if we exhaust every option at the U.N.
Next, we should make every attempt to forge the same strong coalition that brought Saddam to his knees during the Gulf War. The knowledge that he is an outlaw in the eyes of the world community will send a powerful message to him to comply with the U.N. resolutions he agreed to after the Gulf War.
DELIVERING AN ULTIMATUM
I believe we should issue an ultimatum to Saddam to allow weapons inspectors and immediately disarm. If he does not comply, we can then take swift military action to force his compliance and deprive him of his weapons. But I do not believe we should authorize an invasion of Iraq tonight.
A UNITED NATION
I know this vote will place me with a small minority of my colleagues, but I must vote my conscience. I say to the President and to my colleagues that while I do not support this resolution, I know it will pass.
And if the President exercises the authority it grants him to launch a unilateral invasion of Iraq, I will stand with him. I will do everything in my power to support our troops and ask for the support of our allies. Like every American on that day, I will pray for the safety of our soldiers in battle, the wisdom of our leaders, a swift victory, and for the lasting peace that has so far eluded the troubled peoples of that region.
