Smith (WA09) - National Defense Editorial - Why I Will Vote For the 'Force' Resolution

Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. After talking with Middle East experts, listening to constituents, and hearing testimony from both Bush and Clinton administration officials, this truth is clear to me. It is so critically important to the future of our world that we must use force if necessary to accomplish that goal.

Saddam is not simply an evil dictator. He is an unpredictable, sociopathic murderer with grandiose dreams of power. He has used murder, terror and even chemical weapons against his own people to suppress challenges to his regime.

Saddam with nuclear weapons would subject the world to an unacceptable level of risk. While it is unclear how far along he is developing nuclear weapons, he has come close twice before, thwarted first by Israel and then by American and the United Nations after the Persian Gulf War. We also know Saddam is currently trying to develop nuclear weapons. Although we cannot say for sure that he would join forces with al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, there is evidence of such links and we must be cognizant of this risk.

Some argue that Saddam, even with nuclear weapons, could be contained and is unlikely to use those weapons. Unfortunatly, Saddam has thus far proved a peaceful containment, consisting of sanctions and weapons inspections, to be untenable.

He invaded Kuwait knowing it would be unacceptable to the international community, attempted to assassinate President George Bush and thwarted the U.N. arms inspections regime. Saddam has obviously not been brought to heel and continues to push the envelope. Unfortunately, he has been getting away with it because the United Nations and the States have failed to act aggressively.

Ideally, we would stop Saddam from obtaining weapons of mass destruction without war. However, given his history of violence, unpredictability and animosity toward the United States, that may not be an option.

I write this even though I fear the consequences of war. The cost of live, both American and Iraqi, could be great. I fear also the reaction of the Muslim world and the international community. Greater hostility toward the United States may occur. A post-Saddam Iraq could descend into a bloody tribal war, presenting new challenges.

President Bush must do a better job, both at home and around the world, of making the case for military action than he has thus far. His rationale for war has bounced all over the map: Iraqi links to al-Qaida; broken U.N. resolutions; the regional threat Saddam poses; possible threats to the United States; that Saddam Atried to kill my dad@; and the threat of Saddam with weapons of mass destruction.

I am also troubled that the president has made it more difficult to garner world support by surrounding unnecessarily unilateral tones on issues from Iraq to the Kyoto Protocol. His Awild west@ language, including his flippant remarks about the Middle East on the gold course, hasn=t allayed international fears that our president wants war with Iraq as a first option.

He also brought unnecessary controversy into the debate by implying action against Iraq would be part of a new Apreemptive strike@ doctrine. Regardless of how one feels about a preemptive strike, that isn=t what we=re talking about here. Saddam is in violation of the armistice that allowed him to remain in power after the gulf war in exchange for disarmament and weapons inspections, and we have the right to enforce the terms of the armistice.

However, Bush=s missteps do not change the fact that Saddam must be dealt with. I=m pleased that congressional and public pressure led the president to seek U.N. and international support for action against Saddam, and he is now asking for congressional approval to use force if necessary in Iraq.

I will support authorizing force against Iraq because a violent madman like Saddam possessing nuclear weapons is unacceptable.

I would prefer on the resolution after the president has exhausted other options, particularly at the United Nations. This could take two or three months. I am disappointed that political leaders on both sides of the aisle are rushing through this resolution. However, the vote is now, and I believe that if force is necessary, force must be used.

I sincerely hope the president works more effectively with our allies and makes his case more clearly. Preferably, the international community would come together to disarm Iraq peacefully. If that cannot be achieved, war and the costly job of rebuilding Iraq are more likely to succeed if we have broad international support.

I promise the people I represent that this will not be my final word on the subject. I will continue to work with the administration and fight for a broad international coalition, commitment to American values and the best treatment of our military men and women who serve this country.



	*Why I Will Vote For the 'Force' Resolution*

	October 9, 2002

	Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. After talking with Middle East experts, listening to constituents, and hearing testimony from both Bush and Clinton administration officials, this truth is clear to me. It is so critically important to the future of our world that we must use force if necessary to accomplish that goal. Saddam is not simply an evil dictator. He is an unpredictable, sociopathic murderer with grandiose dreams of power. He has used murder, terror and even chemical weapons against his own people to suppress challenges to his regime. Saddam with nuclear weapons would subject the world to an unacceptable level of risk. While it is unclear how far along he is developing nuclear weapons, he has come close twice before, thwarted first by Israel and then by American and the United Nations after the Persian Gulf War. We also know Saddam is currently trying to develop nuclear weapons. Although we cannot say for sure that he would join forces with al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, there is evidence of such links and we must be cognizant of this risk. Some argue that Saddam, even with nuclear weapons, could be contained and is unlikely to use those weapons. Unfortunatly, Saddam has thus far proved a peaceful containment, consisting of sanctions and weapons inspections, to be untenable. He invaded Kuwait knowing it would be unacceptable to the international community, attempted to assassinate President George Bush and thwarted the U.N. arms inspections regime. Saddam has obviously not been brought to heel and continues to push the envelope. Unfortunately, he has been getting away with it because the United Nations and the States have failed to act aggressively. Ideally, we would stop Saddam from obtaining weapons of mass destruction without war. However, given his history of violence, unpredictability and animosity toward the United States, that may not be an option. I write this even though I fear the consequences of war. The cost of live, both American and Iraqi, could be great. I fear also the reaction of the Muslim world and the international community. Greater hostility toward the United States may occur. A post-Saddam Iraq could descend into a bloody tribal war, presenting new challenges. President Bush must do a better job, both at home and around the world, of making the case for military action than he has thus far. His rationale for war has bounced all over the map: Iraqi links to al-Qaida; broken U.N. resolutions; the regional threat Saddam poses; possible threats to the United States; that Saddam Atried to kill my dad@; and the threat of Saddam with weapons of mass destruction. I am also troubled that the president has made it more difficult to garner world support by surrounding unnecessarily unilateral tones on issues from Iraq to the Kyoto Protocol. His Awild west@ language, including his flippant remarks about the Middle East on the gold course, hasn=t allayed international fears that our president wants war with Iraq as a first option. He also brought unnecessary controversy into the debate by implying action against Iraq would be part of a new Apreemptive strike@ doctrine. Regardless of how one feels about a preemptive strike, that isn=t what we=re talking about here. Saddam is in violation of the armistice that allowed him to remain in power after the gulf war in exchange for disarmament and weapons inspections, and we have the right to enforce the terms of the armistice. However, Bush=s missteps do not change the fact that Saddam must be dealt with. I=m pleased that congressional and public pressure led the president to seek U.N. and international support for action against Saddam, and he is now asking for congressional approval to use force if necessary in Iraq. I will support authorizing force against Iraq because a violent madman like Saddam possessing nuclear weapons is unacceptable. I would prefer on the resolution after the president has exhausted other options, particularly at the United Nations. This could take two or three months. I am disappointed that political leaders on both sides of the aisle are rushing through this resolution. However, the vote is now, and I believe that if force is necessary, force must be used. I sincerely hope the president works more effectively with our allies and makes his case more clearly. Preferably, the international community would come together to disarm Iraq peacefully. If that cannot be achieved, war and the costly job of rebuilding Iraq are more likely to succeed if we have broad international support. I promise the people I represent that this will not be my final word on the subject. I will continue to work with the administration and fight for a broad international coalition, commitment to American values and the best treatment of our military men and women who serve this country.

###