Mr. Speaker,
Recently, I attended my oldest son’s eighth grade graduation. Graduating with him was Jennifer Davis, the daughter of my childhood friend, Major Miles Davis, who could not attend. That night, I talked with Miles’ wife, Karen, who told me how painful it was for their family to have Miles so abruptly deployed to Iraq.
Such heart rending scenes throughout our land are why I believe we owe Americans more in this resolution than a simple declaration of our resolve in Iraq. We owe them an account of our progress in the world War on Terror; an assessment of the situation, the stakes, and the strategy for victory in the battle for Iraq; and an affirmation we will defend our country, defeat the enemy, and win this unsought struggle for survival.
Thus, I rise to express my profound disappointment with this resolution before us, because it is strategically nebulous; morally obtuse; and woefully inadequate.
To begin, this resolution’s purpose is limited to
Declaring the United States will complete the mission in Iraq and prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
This is patently inadequate to task at hand; and, unfortunately, under continued examination the resolution fares no better.
To wit, the first “Whereas” clause informs us:
…the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world.
This clause elicits elementary questions: what “values” of ours cause our enemy to hate us; and what, precisely, is the enemy’s ideology? Sadly, this clause provides no clues.
The second clause recounts how:
…for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States.
This clause is too sanitized. The hard truth is the enemy has not tried to intimidate us. The enemy has tried to kill us and too often succeeded. The enemy does so because our very existence as sovereign citizens of a free Republic constitutes a beacon of hope for all who are – and all who yearn to be – free; thus, we are our enemy’s paramount obstacle to world dominion.
Next, the third clause rightly asserts:
…it is essential to the security of the American people and to world security that the United States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance.
Agreed. But this clause must stress both a philosophic principle and a strategic tenet.
Philosophically, any state-sponsor of terror is a threat to the United States, because terrorism is an attack upon the self-evident, inalienable human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Strategically, this clause falters as an oblique and abashed defense of our nation’s sovereign right to preemptively eradicate terrorists and their state-sponsors before they kill us. Instead, the clause must reaffirm our nation’s full right of self-defense.
The seventh clause decries how:
…by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba’athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
Bluntly, this clause omits the obvious: By early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal Ba’athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against the United States of America and was in violation of mandatory treaty obligations to the United States of America.
By omitting the fact Hussein’s regime deemed the United States not as just a part of the global community, but as a mortal enemy, this clause wrongly implies our preemption of his threat must and does meet a “global test” for legitimacy.
The eighth clause reiterates:
…the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors;
Again, the point is missed. Our mission is to transform Iraq from a rogue dictatorship aiding terrorists into a representative democracy eradicating terrorists; and into a sovereign, free, secure, and united nation at peace with the United States, its Coalition partners, and all other peaceable nations.
Next, clause eleven’s belief “…the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists’ aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East,” also misses the point. As an American, I believe the clause should read: “the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists’ aspirations for the United States of America, Iraq, our Coalition partners, and the broader Middle East.”
Now, at last, we reach the resolution’s three lethal failings.
To start with, taken together, the ninth and fifteenth clauses raise a stark conundrum.
Ignoring the United States in word and deed first targeted Iraq as a “central front” in our War on Terror, clause nine notes “the terrorists have declared Iraq to be a central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology.”
Later, clause fifteen asserts “…the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terrorism.”
These clauses’ collective conundrum is this: if, after we militarily deposed Hussein, the terrorist enemy now deems Iraq a central front in its “war against all those who oppose their ideology,” why do we now view Iraq as but “part of the Global War on Terror”?
Upon this critical question and its ramifications, the resolution is silent.
The resolution’s second lethal failing is found, interestingly enough, in clause twelve, which offers hopeful news of how we, our Coalition partners, and the Iraqis have:
…scored impressive victories in Iraq, including finding and killing the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi;
Well said. But nowhere does this resolution explain the battle for Iraq’s past, present, and future difficulties, or proffer any concrete or comprehensive strategy as to how U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi forces will confront and conquer these challenges.
One irony proves the point. My allotted time to speak on this amendment is under the section dedicated to Iraqi reconstruction. Yet nowhere in this resolution appears the word “reconstruction.”
The resolution’s final, and paramount, failing occurs in clause thirteen, which assures us:
…Iraqi security forces are, over time, taking over from the United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight against terror in Iraq.
This clause’s logic implies the enemy will remain operationally active in Iraq when our military leaves the battlefield. This implication stems from the incessant lack of emphasis accorded the concomitant and equal pillar of the administration’s military strategy in Iraq. Specifically, the time required to win and bring our troops home hinges upon creating Iraqi security forces and destroying the enemy’s insurgency. Continuing to emphasize the creation of security forces while de-emphasizing the destruction of the terrorists’ insurgency, will only lengthen the time required to accomplish the mission in Iraq and welcome our troops back.
Mr. Speaker, my time grows short, so, in conclusion, I will focus on the one word in the resolved clause which, in fact, inexplicably permeates the resolution; and, inexorably, precludes my support of this resolution. The offending word is “adversary.”
Starkly and sanely understood, within Iraq and the overarching world War on Terror we do not have an adversary. We have an enemy. Thus, because words have meaning, even if I could ignore the fact this resolution is strategically nebulous, I will not overlook the fact it lacks the moral clarity to call the terrorists our enemy.
Mr. Speaker, at St. Edith’s eighth grade graduation, I did not try to comfort Karen by declaring her husband Major Miles Davis was in Iraq defending global peace and security; I did not try to comfort Karen by proclaiming Miles was in Iraq to enforce violated U. N. resolutions; no, I thanked Karen for her family’s sacrifice, because Miles was in Iraq honoring his solemn pledge to God and to us to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies.”
Mr. Speaker, amidst an anguished era ennobled by our sacrifices in the unsought struggle against a bloodthirsty enemy, we ask our troops to do their best; we ask their families to do their best; and we ask our fellow citizens to do their best. But we, in “the people’s house,” have not done our best; and upon this resolution I will be voting “present.”
[Extension of remarks attached: President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Ninth Annual Message to Congress, January 6, 1942; and Message to Congress on the Progress of the War, September 17, 1943.]