Peace and Security Through a Position of Strength

Just off the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol building stands a statue of a fellow Pennsylvanian by the name of John Muhlenberg. In early 1776, this 29 year-old Lutheran Minister gave a sermon in Woodstock, Virginia in which he called upon the men of his congregation to join him in fighting for our Nation’s independence. Quoting the Book of Ecclesiastes, Pastor Muhlenberg said: “There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven . . . A time for war and a time for peace.” Contending that the time for war had arrived, Pastor Muhlenberg then concluded his sermon by casting off his clerical robes to reveal the uniform of a Continental Army officer. Pastor Muhlenberg went on to serve as a general in the Continental Army.

More than a century and a half later, in an address at Chautauqua, New York in 1936, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt stated, “I hate war.” Yet, after Pearl Harbor roused our nation from a slumbering isolationism, President Roosevelt knew that the time for war had come. The actions of Pastor Muhlenberg and President Roosevelt remind us that, from the very beginning of our great Nation to modern times, war is always regrettable, but sometimes necessary to protect the lives of our citizens and to secure the important principles for which our Nation stands.

As our Nation now seeks to address the very serious and immediate threat that Saddam Hussein’s regime poses to American lives, both abroad and here at home, it remains to be seen whether war will be a necessary part of our Nation’s efforts. I certainly hope and pray that it will not. Unfortunately, however, Saddam Hussein’s actions, past and present, do not provide much reason to believe that my hopes and prayers will be fulfilled.

If diplomacy is to have any chance of success, Saddam Hussein must fully and unequivocally understand that, if necessary, the United States and other peace-loving nations will no longer stand idly by while he further enhances his chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and aggressively pursues the production of nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein must understand that, if necessary, we will use military force to eliminate the threat that his weapons pose to our citizens.

It was thus imperative for the United States Congress to pass legislation authorizing President George Bush to use military force to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq” and to “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” I joined with an overwhelming majority of my House colleagues, Republican and Democrat, in voting in favor of this legislation, House Joint Resolution 114.

Importantly, H.J.Res. 114 requires that, prior to using military force against Saddam Hussein’s regime, President Bush must officially determine that further reliance on “diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either will not adequately protect the national security of the United States” or will not likely “lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” Said determination must be shared with the House and Senate.

My decision to support H.J. Res. 114 followed much deliberation and was the product of countless hours of careful review of information from many sources. I have fully considered the views and concerns of hundreds of 19th District residents. As a member of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, I have participated in numerous classified briefings with various Administration officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, and Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John McLaughlin. I have also met overseas and in Washington with leaders of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a coalition of Shi’a, Sunni, and Kurdish Iraqi dissidents seeking to liberate their people from Saddam Hussein’s oppressive rule. Although very diverse in their backgrounds, they are united in a common belief that Saddam Hussein’s military regime must be replaced with a more humane government. My interactions with the INC representatives leads me to believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein will be embraced enthusiastically by the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people-just as the people of Afghanistan embraced their liberation from the Taliban.

My challenge is to fully explain my support for H.J.Res. 114 when much of the most important factual basis for this extremely serious decision is classified information. While I cannot legally share such classified material publicly, I can frankly and honestly state that my review of said material has wholly convinced me that Saddam Hussein's military regime poses a grave threat to the safety and security of American citizens, including here at home. There is compelling evidence of Iraq's biological and chemical capabilities and Saddam Hussein's intended use of such weapons. There is also strong evidence of his pursuit of nuclear weapons. Of significant concern is Iraq’s growing fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that are capable of dispensing biological or chemical weapons. As President Bush stated in his recent address to the Nation, our intelligence information indicates that Saddam Hussein is “exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.”

Please allow me to address various actions by Iraq over the past 11 years that are in the public domain. First, Iraq has a long record of abetting terrorist groups. For example, Hussein has supported and praised Palestinian suicide bombers who have taken the lives of countless innocent civilians, including American citizens. He has also financially rewarded the families of said suicide bombers. Although no direct Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks has been proven, there is strong evidence that Iraq is serving as a safe harbor for al Qaeda terrorists since the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Second, as part of the United Nations-sponsored cease-fire agreement following the liberation of Kuwait, Iraq agreed to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and allow inspections to ensure its compliance with the agreement. Iraq has been in continuous violation of the cease-fire terms, playing “cat-and-mouse” games with United Nations inspectors while continuing to develop WMD. Since inspectors were effectively expelled in 1998, Iraq has been completely free to continue its pursuit of developing WMD and the means to deliver them. Saddam Hussein doesn’t just possess chemical and biological WMD, he also has a record of using such weapons against a neighboring country, Iran, as well as against his own people, including innocent children.

Third, Saddam Hussein has demonstrated his absolute hostility towards the United States by directing his military to regularly fire on U.S. aircraft enforcing United Nations-sanctioned "no fly zones" in northern and southern Iraq. These “no fly zones” protect the Iraqi people in those regions from persecution by Saddam Hussein. According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. and other allied aircraft enforcing the “no fly zones” have been fired upon more than 2,000 times by Iraqi military units.

Fourth, Saddam Hussein has engaged in heinous human rights violations against his own people. He has intimidated political opponents by ordering the systematic rape of wives and mothers of said opponents and he has forced parents to watch their children be tortured as a means of political coercion.

Finally, it is important to note that “regime change” in Iraq is not a new policy adopted by the Bush Administration. Rather, the Iraq Liberation Act, which states that it is the policy of the United States government “to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime,” was enacted in 1998. Sponsored by Congressman Ben Gilman in the House and Senators Trent Lott and Joseph Lieberman in the Senate, the Iraq Liberation Act passed the House by a vote of 360-38 and the Senate unanimously. President Bill Clinton signed this act into law on October 31, 1998.

If the use of military force against Saddam Hussein’s regime does prove to be necessary to protect our Nation's security, such military action must be carefully designed to minimize the risk of injury and death to Iraqi civilians and American military personnel. The enemy is the regime of Saddam Hussein, not the Iraqi people.

Ideally, President Bush, working hand-in-hand with our allies and the United Nations Security Council, will be successful in fully addressing the threat that Saddam Hussein and his military regime pose to world peace and to our Nation's security without having to resort to military force. But if diplomatic efforts fail to truly eliminate this grave threat to American lives, then we must be prepared to act decisively, just as our forefathers did during the Revolutionary War and World War II.

President Bush well captured the challenge before us when he stated, “As Americans, we want peace. We work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator.”

###