|
CounterPunch
October
4, 2002
Bush War Plan:
"Blind and Improvident"
by SENATOR ROBERT BYRD
The great Roman historian, Titus Livius, said,
"All things will be clear and distinct to the man who does
not hurry; haste is blind and improvident."
"Blind and improvident," Mr.
President. "Blind and improvident." Congress would
be wise to heed those words today, for as sure as the sun rises
in the east, we are embarking on a course of action with regard
to Iraq that, in its haste, is both blind and improvident. We
are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly
considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to
explore what steps we might take to avert conflict.
The newly bellicose mood that permeates
this White House is unfortunate, all the moreso because it is
clearly motivated by campaign politics. Republicans are already
running attack ads against Democrats on Iraq. Democrats favor
fast approval of a resolution so they can change the subject
to domestic economic problems. (NY Times 9/20/2002)
Before risking the lives of American
troops, all members of Congress - Democrats and Republicans alike
- must overcome the siren song of political polls and focus strictly
on the merits, not the politics, of this most serious issue.
The resolution before us today is not
only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential
hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines
the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit
the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President
blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on
a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United
States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation
of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention
the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on
its head.
Representative Abraham Lincoln, in a
letter to William H. Herndon, stated: "Allow the President
to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary
to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he
may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - -
and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you
can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have
given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose
to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the
British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say
to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but
he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'
"The provision of the Constitution
giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand
it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving
and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally,
if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This,
our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly
oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that
no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression
upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places
our President where kings have always stood."
If he could speak to us today, what would
Lincoln say of the Bush doctrine concerning preemptive strikes?
In a September 18 report, the Congressional
Research Service had this to say about the preemptive use of
military force:
The historical record indicates that
the United States has never, to date, engaged in a "preemptive"
military attack against another nation. Nor has the United States
ever attacked another nation militarily prior to its first having
been attacked or prior to U.S. citizens or interests first having
been attacked, with the singular exception of the Spanish-American
War. The Spanish-American War is unique in that the principal
goal of United States military action was to compel Spain to
grant Cuba its political independence.
The Congressional Research Service also
noted that the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 "represents
a threat situation which some may argue had elements more parallel
to those presented by Iraq today - but it was resolved without
a "preemptive" military attack by the United States."
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution
grants Congress the power to declare war and to call forth the
militia "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections
and repel Invasions." Nowhere in the Constitution is it
written that the President has the authority to call forth the
militia to preempt a perceived threat. And yet, the resolution
before the Senate avers that the President "has authority
under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent
acts of international terrorism against the United States, as
Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization
for Use of Miliary Force" following the September 11 terrorist
attack. What a cynical twisting of words! The reality is that
Congress, exercising the authority granted to it under the Constitution,
granted the President specific and limited authority to use force
against the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. Nowhere
was there an implied recognition of inherent authority under
the Constitution to "deter and prevent" future acts
of terrorism.
Think for a moment of the precedent that
this resolution will set, not just for this President but for
future Presidents. From this day forward, American Presidents
will be able to invoke Senate Joint Resolution 46 as justification
for launching preemptive military strikes against any sovereign
nations that they perceive to be a threat. Other nations will
be able to hold up the United States as the model to justify
their military adventures. Do you not think that India and Pakistan,
China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia are closely watching the
outcome of this debate? Do you not think that future adversaries
will look to this moment to rationalize the use of military force
to achieve who knows what ends?
Perhaps a case can be made that Iraq
poses such a clear and immediate danger to the United States
that preemptive military action is the only way to deal with
the threat. To be sure, weapons of mass destruction are a 20th
century horror that the Framers of the Constitution had no way
of foreseeing. But they did foresee the frailty of human nature
and the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one
individual. That is why the Framers bestowed on Congress, not
the President, the power to declare war.
As James Madison wrote in 1793, "In
no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than
in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to
the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside
the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the
trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man...."
Congress has a responsibility to exercise
with extreme care the power to declare war. There is no weightier
matter to be considered. A war against Iraq will affect thousands
if not tens of thousands of lives, and perhaps alter the course
of history. It will surely affect the balance of power in the
Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste, under
the glare of election year politics and the pressure of artificial
deadlines. And yet any observer can see that that is exactly
what the Senate is proposing to do.
The Senate is rushing to vote on whether
to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war
being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort?
Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days
before a general election when a third of the Senate and the
entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized,
weeks of election campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1),
the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether
to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to
give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever
he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why
is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military
campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue?
Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq
in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained
some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that
he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical
and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also
indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet
achieved nuclear capability. It is now October of 2002. Four
years have gone by in which neither this administration nor the
previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq to protect against
the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Until today.
Until 33 days until election day. Now we are being told that
we must act immediately, before adjournment and before the elections.
Why the rush?
Yes, we had September 11. But we must
not make the mistake of looking at the resolution before us as
just another offshoot of the war on terror. We know who was behind
the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know it was
Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network. We have dealt
with al Qaeda and with the Taliban government that sheltered
it - we have routed them from Afghanistan and we are continuing
to pursue them in hiding.
So where does Iraq enter the equation?
No one in the Administration has been able to produce any solid
evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack. Iraq had biological
and chemical weapons long before September 11. We knew it then,
and we know it now. Iraq has been an enemy of the United States
for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent
threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already?
The fact that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does
not, de facto, mean that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock and
load position and is readying an attack on the United States.
In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of Administration rhetoric
over Iraq that is of such moment that it would preclude the Senate
from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough
and informed discussion of this crucial issue.
The President is using the Oval Office
as a bully pulpit to sound the call to arms, but it is from Capitol
Hill that such orders must flow. The people, through their elected
representatives, must make that decision. It is here that debate
must take place and where the full spectrum of the public's desires,
concerns, and misgivings must be heard. We should not allow ourselves
to be pushed into one course or another in the face of a full
court publicity press from the White House. We have, rather,
a duty to the nation and her sons and daughters to carefully
examine all possible courses of action and to consider the long
term consequences of any decision to act.
As to separation of powers, Justice Louis
Brandeis observed: "the doctrine of the separation of powers
was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency
but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power." (Myers
v. United States, 1926)
No one supports Saddam Hussein. If he
were to disappear tomorrow, no one would shed a tear around the
world. I would not. My handkerchief would remain dry. But the
principle of one government deciding to eliminate another government,
using force to do so, and taking that action in spite of world
disapproval, is a very disquieting thing. I am concerned that
it has the effect of destabilizing the world community of nations.
I am concerned that it fosters a climate of suspicion and mistrust
in U.S. relations with other nations. The United States is not
a rogue nation, given to unilateral action in the face of worldwide
opprobrium.
I am also concerned about the consequences
of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. It is difficult to imagine that Saddam
Hussein, who has been ruthless in gaining and staying in power,
would give up without a fight. He is a man who has not shirked
from using chemical weapons against his own people. I fear that
he would use everything in his arsenal against an invasion force,
or against an occupation force, up to and including whatever
chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons he might still have.
Iraq is not Afghanistan, impoverished by decades of war, internal
strife, and stifling religious oppression. Though its military
forces are much diminished, Iraq has a strong central command
and much greater governmental control over its forces and its
people. It is a large country that has spent years on a wartime
footing, and it still has some wealth.
Nor do I think that the Iraqi people
would necessarily rise up against Saddam Hussein in the event
of a U.S. invasion, even if there is an undercurrent of support
for his overthrow. The Iraqi people have spent decades living
in fear of Saddam Hussein and his network of informers and security
forces. There has been no positive showing, in the form of riots
or large and active internal opposition groups, that popular
sentiment in Iraq supports a governmental overthrow or the installation
of a democratic or republican form of government. There is no
tradition of democracy in Iraq's long history. There is, however,
a natural instinct to favor the known over the unknown, and in
this instance, the U.S. is the unknown factor. The President
and his cabinet have suggested that this would be a war of relatively
short duration. If that is true, which I doubt, but if it were,
why would the Iraqi populace rush out to welcome the U.S. forces.
In a few weeks, they might have to answer to the remnants of
Saddam Hussein's security forces. A prudent Iraqi would just
put his or her head under the bedcovers and not come out until
the future became clear.
A U.S. invasion of Iraq that proved successful
and which resulted in the overthrow of the government would not
be a simple effort. The aftermath of that effort would require
a long term occupation. The President has said that he would
overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a new government that
would recognize all interest groups in Iraq. This would presumably
include the Kurds to the north and the Shiite Muslims to the
south. Because the entire military and security apparatus of
Iraq would have to be replaced, the U.S. would have to provide
interim security throughout the countryside. This kind of nation-building
cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy
godmother, even one with the full might and power of the world's
last remaining superpower behind her.
To follow through on the proposal outlined
by the President would require the commitment of a large number
of U.S. forces - forces that cannot be used for other missions,
such as homeland defense - for an extended period of time. It
will take time to confirm that Iraq's programs to develop weapons
of mass destruction are well and truly destroyed. It will take
time to root out all elements of Saddam Hussein's government,
military, and security forces and to build new government and
security elements. It will take time to establish a new and legitimate
government and to conduct free and fair elections. It will cost
billions of dollars to do this as well. And the forces to carry
out this mission and to pay for this mission will come from the
United States. There can be little question of that. If the rest
of the world doesn't want to come with us at the outset, it seems
highly unlikely that they would line up for the follow through,
even though their own security might be improved by the elimination
of a rogue nation's weapons of mass destruction. So, if the Congress
authorizes such a mission, we must be prepared for what will
follow.
The Congressional Budget Office has already
made some estimations regarding the cost of a possible war with
Iraq. In a September 30 report, CBO estimates that the incremental
costs - the costs that would be incurred above those budgeted
for routine operations - would be between $9 billion to $13 billion
a month, depending on the actual force size deployed. Prosecuting
a war would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month. Since
the length of the war cannot be predicted, CBO could give no
total battle estimate. After hostilities end, the cost to return
U.S. forces to their home bases would range between $5 billion
and $7 billion, according to CBO. And the incremental cost of
an occupation following combat operations varies from about $1
billion to $4 billion a month. This estimate does not include
any cost of rebuilding or humanitarian assistance. That is a
steep price to pay in dollars, but dollars are only a part of
the equation.
There are many formulas to calculate
cost in the form of dollars, but it is much more difficult to
calculate cost in the form of deaths. Iraq may be a weaker nation
militarily than it was during the Persian Gulf war, but its leader
is no less determined and his weapons are no less lethal. During
the Persian Gulf War, the United States was able to convince
Saddam Hussein that the use of weapons of mass destruction would
result in his being toppled from power. This time around, the
object of an invasion of Iraq is to topple Saddam Hussein, so
he has no reason to exercise restraint.
The questions surrounding the wisdom
of declaring war on Iraq are many and serious. The answers are
too few and too glib. This is no way to embark on war. The Senate
must address these questions before acting on this kind of sweeping
use of force resolution. We don't need more rhetoric. We don't
need more campaign slogans or fund raising letters. We need -
the American people need - information and informed debate.
Before we rush into war, we should focus
on those things that pose the most direct threat to us - those
facilities and weapons that form the body of Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program. The United Nations is the proper forum
to deal with the inspection of these facilities, and the destruction
of any weapons discovered. If United Nations inspectors can enter
the country, inspect those facilities and mark for destruction
the ones that truly belong to a weapons program, then Iraq can
be declawed without unnecessary risk or loss of life. That would
be the best answer for Iraq, for the United States, and for the
world. But if Iraq again chooses to interfere with such an ongoing
and admittedly intrusive inspection regime, then and only then
should the United States, with the support of the world, take
stronger measures.
This is what Congress did in 1991, before
the Persian Gulf War. The United States at that time gave the
United Nations the lead in demanding that Iraq withdraw from
Kuwait. The U.S. took the time to build a coalition of partners.
When Iraq failed to heed the UN, then and only then did Congress
authorize the use of force. That is the order in which the steps
to war should be taken.
Everyone wants to protect our nation
and our people. To do that in the most effective way possible,
we should avail ourselves of every opportunity to minimize the
number of troops we put at risk. Seeking once again to allow
the United Nations inspection regime to peacefully seek and destroy
the facilities and equipment employed in the Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction program would be the least costly and most effective
way of reducing the risk to our nation, provided that it is backed
up by a credible threat of force if Iraq once again attempts
to thwart the inspections. We can take a measured, stepped approach
that would still leave open the possibility of a ground invasion
if that should become necessary, but there is no need to take
that step now.
I urge restraint. President Bush gave
the United Nations the opening to deal effectively with the threat
posed by Iraq. The UN embraced his exhortation and is working
to develop a new, tougher inspection regime with firm deadlines
and swift and sure accountability. Let us be convinced that a
reinvigorated inspection regime cannot work before we move to
any next step, and let us if we must employ force, employ the
most precise and limited use of force necessary to get the job
done.
Let us guard against the perils of haste,
lest the Senate fall prey to the dangers of taking action that
is both blind and improvident.
Robert Byrd
is the senior senator from West Virginia. This is the text of
his remarks to the senate on the Bush war resolution.
Today's Features
Gary Leupp
Talking
to Your Kids About Fascism
Will Youmans
The New
Anti-Apartheid Movement: The Campaign to Divest from Israel
Deb Reich
Report from a Mad World
Todd Chretien & Sue Sandlin
"It's All About Power on the
Docks"
Kurt Nimmo
Poetry
as Treason
Amiri Baraka
Somebody
Blew Up America
Alexander Cockburn
October Surprises
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- Hunting Commie Perverts:
The Scarlet Professor
- DC's Best Political
Mind; DC's Most Dangerous Man;
- Dershowitz the Torturer:
Guess Why He Wants Clean Needles;
- Lese Majeste: That's
Against the Law Too;
- The Greatest Endorsement
AAA Will Ever Get;
- Merle Haggard on Civil
Liberties;
- Dullness Hailed: The Press on the Defeat of McKinney,
Traficant and Barr;
- National Review Puffs
into Town.
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
October 2,
2002
Carol Wolman,
MD
Is the
President Nuts?
Diagnosing Dubya
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Something
Rotten in Klamath
Linda S. Heard
Might Sharon
Nuke Iraq?
Joanne Mariner
When
the Judge Says:
"I Botched It"
Peter P. Mahoney
A Vietnam
Vet Makes the
Case Against War on Iraq
Mark Engler
From the
Quarantine
Agaisnt Greed
Uri Avnery
Manufacturing
Anti-Semites
Jennifer Berkshire
Converging Against Capitalism
October 1,
2002
Benjamin Shepard
On the
Road Again:
IMF/World Bank Protest
Reveal a Revived
Movement for Global Justice
Dr. Susan
Block
Cockfight
at the
Baghdad Corral
Krystal Kyer
Growing Union Opposition
to War
Ron Jacobs
Born Without a Spine
Scott Loughrey
Mysteries
of 9/11
Jeremy Brecher
Collective
Security is Working
Brenda Norrell
Troy
Black Feather on
the American Flag
Sam Bahour
Wake Up
and Smell
the Occupation
Richard Harth
Contrary
to Reason:
Adieu, Hitchens, Adieu
Carol Norris
Rumsfeld
the Surrealist:
Things Related and Not
Ben Tripp
Lists Upon
Lists
September
30, 2002
Rep. Barbara
Lee
Alternatives
to War
Kurt Nimmo
Iraq: The
Vision
of the Velociraptors
Zeynep Toufe
"We
Own the World, We Ignore the Children"
Dave Marsh
The Troubador's
Highway
Tariq Ali
Taking
It to London's Streets
Neve Gordon
Bush's
War of Self-Adulation
September
25 / 29, 2002
Alexander
Cockburn
The
Dogs of War,
the Bears of Wall Street
Ben Tripp
Hunting with George
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Haywire: Boeing's New Navy Fighter Fails Bomb Tests
Joanne Mariner
Naming Genocide
James T. Philips
Riding to Maine
Anis Shivani
Life of a Bum
David Vest
Too True North
Jacob Levich
Case of the Missing Terrorist
William MacDougall
British Immigration Tests
Edward Hammond
Pentagon Develops Illegal Chemical Weapons Capability
Molly Secours
Bush's "I" Words:
Intervention & Impeachment
Edward Lazarus
Civil Liberties After 9/11
Lee Sustar
Employers Attack
Anthony Gancarski
Ledeen's Mad World
Krystal Kyer
Bush the Magician
David Wiggins
West Point Grad:
Bush Threatens World Peace
September
24, 2002
Chet Batsmack,
American
The American
Century
Paul de Rooij
Smear Mongers
George Szamuely
International
Kangaroo Courts
Jack Wheeler
Janet Reno: America's Saddam?
Linda S. Heard
Portrait
of Uncle Sam
Gary Leupp
Random
Thoughts on Anti-Americanism
Wayne Madsen
Germany
Leads the Way
William Hughes
George
Will: War Pimp
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|