|
|
Congressman Elijah
E. Cummings |
|
|
|
Congressman Elijah
E. Cummings |
|
March 2, 2003
Advance Text of Remarks
"Costs of War" Community Meeting
Columbia, Maryland
Thank you, Delegate Liz Bobo, for your kind words of introduction -- and for all that you have done and continue to do for the people of our community. I welcome this opportunity to join you -- and our newly elected colleague, Councilman Dave Rakes -- as we exercise our right and duty as Americans to discuss one of the most pressing issues of our time.
Ladies and gentlemen -- I must leave you in a little while to catch a flight, but I felt that I had to find the time to stop by and thank you for being people of conscience and common sense. Thank you for standing up for the values in which we believe.
We are living in difficult and dangerous times. I need your counsel and your support.
Last year, as most of you are aware, I voted against President Bush's demand for advance congressional authorization to use military force against Iraq. I took that action for three reasons -- each of which would have been sufficient in itself.
1. In the absence of a clear and present danger to the people of this nation, I believe that giving the President a "blank check" to commit this nation to war represents an abdication of the fundamental duty that our Constitution vests in the Congress of the United States.
2. I voted - and I continue to work - for a process that would require the active engagement of the United Nations Security Council in resolving a regional security crisis in the Middle East that is far more extensive than the dangers posed by Iraq. That process, I believe, remains our best strategy for security and peace.
3. Finally, I believed then (and continue to believe today) that the consequences of unilateral U.S. action against Iraq are potentially disastrous.
Today, I am among the Members of Congress who remain unconvinced that war in Iraq is justified. I have grave doubts about the impact on our broader national interest. And I believe that there would be significant moral damage as well.
Those of us who believe that the U.N. inspections and verification process should be given more time to work are in some very good company. There are good reasons why a growing number of Americans -- and most of our allies abroad -- demand that the U.N. inspection process be given more time to work before we go to war.
Tens of millions of other Americans are deeply concerned about the prospect of war in the Middle East -- especially at a time when we are not yet adequately defended against terrorist attack. This anxiety is especially acute for those Americans whose sons and daughters would be placed in harm's way -- and for those Americans who would suffer most from the consequences of war here at home.
Before I share a few thoughts about some of the potential costs of unilateral U.S. military action in Iraq, I should clearly state two important points:
First, Saddam Hussein's regime should take no comfort in the differences that I have with the Bush Administration's approach.
I do not want to minimize the progress that the U.N. teams are making -- but President Bush has made it very clear that time is running out for a peaceful resolution of this crisis. Iraq must work far more actively with the U.N. to disarm -- and Iraq must prove to the world that they have disarmed.
Second, if the President does commit our young men and women to war, our troops will have my complete and unconditional support.
Protecting our people is my constitutional responsibility.
THE POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO OUR NATIONAL INTEREST
Let me briefly outline the damage that I believe unilateral U.S. military action would create.
First and foremost, a unilateral first-strike by American forces would almost certainly result in significant loss of life -- both among our American troops and among Iraq's civilian population.
"Going it alone" would also undermine the moral authority of the United States.
It would establish a devastating international precedent that we may well see echoed in conflicts involving India and Pakistan, Russia and Georgia, China and Taiwan -- and within other troubled regions of the world.
In all likelihood, unilateral U.S. action would further destabilize the Middle East, harming the international cooperation that we need to defend this nation against terrorism.
Moreover, even after military action is concluded, U.S. forces may be forced to remain in Iraq for a decade - a commitment that would be enormously costly without multi-national support and engagement.
Finally, the economic costs of "going it alone" would undermine our ability to address the many unmet domestic priorities here at home.
THE ECONOMIC COSTS
The economic costs would be substantial.
Note the exchange that occurred within the House Budget Committee last Thursday.
As the Associated Press reported, House Democrats have expressed great concern about the Bush administration's refusal to provide any cost estimates of a war against Iraq.
Last Thursday, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz appeared before the House Budget Committee to discuss the administration's $379.9 billion proposed defense budget for next year. The budget does not include the costs of a possible war, which would likely be funded by a mid-year spending bill.
Administration officials and congressional aides have estimated the cost of an Iraq war to be in the range of $60 billion to $100 billion or more. The Bush Administration, however, has declined to comment publicly.
So, the Administration -- trying to mask the full cost of this potential war while it seeks huge additional tax cuts for the nation's most wealthy people -- does not want to talk about the economic costs of war.
Last year, however, then White House Economic Adviser Larry Lindsey estimated the cost in the $100 billion to $200 billion range. Senator Kent Conrad, then Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and my House Colleague, Congressman John Spratt, the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, asked the Congressional Budget Office to evaluate Mr. Lindsay's estimate.
The Congressional Budget Office examined likely war scenarios for a two-month war. Estimated direct costs for that relatively brief war itself were between $27 billion and $36 billion.
As Congressman Spratt accurately points out, however, the CBO evaluation represents only a part of the total cost of a war and its aftermath. It does not provide a comprehensive or total estimate of the financial costs that would be borne by the U.S. taxpayer.
For example, the CBO estimate does not include the cost of:
1) economic and other assistance to reconstruct Iraq and transform it into a stable democracy;
2) humanitarian assistance to war refugees;
3) inducing allies, such as Turkey, to cooperate with U.S. Armed Forces;
4) dismantling and safely disposing of Iraq's stores of weapons of mass destruction; and
5) possible adverse effects on the global or U.S. economy as a result of a spike in oil prices or other unintended consequences of combat in Iraq.
Nor does the CBO's estimate include the interest costs associated with the need to increase U.S. borrowing to pay for all of these costs, as well as the military operation.
Furthermore, the CBO estimate assumes a military action that will proceed as well as it did during the Persian Gulf War. It assumes no prolonged fighting in urban areas, no high U.S. casualties, and no use of chemical or biological weapons against our forces.
"When the costs of the many known and unknown factors that CBO has not estimated are considered," Congressman Spratt has advised us, "it becomes clear that the $100 billion to $200 billion cost estimate by White House Economic Adviser Larry Lindsey is a fair approximation."
The truth, ladies and gentlemen, is that war is an uncertain undertaking. We do not accurately know what the total economic cost to America will be.
We do know, however, that the cost would be staggering. And we know that those costs would strike a devastating blow against our ability to address our compelling domestic priorities -- our need to reform our healthcare system and strengthen social security, our need to provide every child with a world-class education, and our need to construct a stronger economy.
THE COST TO OUR MORALITY AS A PEOPLE
Friends, during my few moments with you today, I have outlined some of the reasons why I believe that we must continue to work through the U.N. -- and why we should not rush to war on our own. Let me close by speaking to the greatest potential cost of all.
We should never allow ourselves to be deluded that America's leadership position in the world is the result of some kind of natural right.
We do not lead by power alone -- but by principle. And that principled position has been placed in jeopardy by the Bush Administration's war plans.
Last month, this nation honored the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and his philosophy of nonviolent social change.
Today, we should be asking ourselves this question: What message does Dr. King's legacy have for the leaders of our time?
We must reconsider our vision of America's role in the world.
We live in a time when many nations have the capability to construct weapons of mass destruction. Peace, Dr. King would tell us, has become a precondition to our continued survival.
"World peace through non-violent means is neither absurd nor unattainable," he observed after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. "All other methods have failed. Thus we must begin anew. Nonviolence is a good starting point."
Dr. King would caution the leadership of this nation that both our highest national principles and the geopolitical realities that we face demand less reliance upon military power.
As a nation, we must learn how to synchronize our conduct with our conscience. We must commit ourselves to creating a foreign policy that would make this nation a full partner in the world's struggle against poverty, violence and disease.
"Peace," Dr. King often declared, "is more than the absence of violent conflict. Peace is the presence of justice."
"When we solve these three great problems: racial injustice around the world, poverty and war," he predicted, "we will have squared our moral progress with our scientific progress. And, more importantly, we will have learned the practical art of living in harmony."
So, my friends, there must be a moral element in our evaluations about war.
The President, however, has not yet provided compelling answers to some critical questions. Where, for example, is the hard evidence that Iraq now poses an imminent threat to American lives?
If the U.N. inspection and verification teams now at work need more assistance to effectively disarm Iraq, the answer to that challenge is not necessarily war.
Wouldn't it be more prudent and effective to first support an expanded inspection effort in Iraq -- while backing the inspectors, if necessary, with the 150,000 American troops now deployed in the Middle East?
In addition to all of the potentially negative consequences to ourselves, we must be clear about one harsh reality of going to war in Iraq.
Many, many innocent people will die.
The words, "collateral damage," are the most morally damning phrase ever created.
That, my friends, is the harsh moral reality that we must face.
Whatever a war would cost us in silver and gold, we must not forget the cost to our national soul.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Peace.
