February 12, 2003
"We Stand
Passively Mute"
To contemplate war is to think about the most
horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation
stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be
contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this
Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent.
There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation
the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by
our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events.
Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive
discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular
war.
And this is no small conflagration we
contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This
coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S.
foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history
of the world.
This nation is about to embark
upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary
way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea
that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack
a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening
in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of
self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law
and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide
terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will
soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration
figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table
when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more
destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly
in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security
interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks
emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly
subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based
on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from
U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global
terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with
little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family
members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of
the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities
are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection.
Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation
is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may
soon spike higher.
This Administration, now
in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record.
I believe that that record is dismal.
In
that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected
surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to
projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's
domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition,
under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration
has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration
has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our
elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding
for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better
protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign
policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In
fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces
and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional
alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping
entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has
called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United
States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned
the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling
of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity
of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling
whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant
-- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no
good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global
war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of
our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we
can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do
us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland
which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already
stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations
who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion
so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting
to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and
unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism
may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration
has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager
to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those
in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned
that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the
absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's
oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and
supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do
we propose to hand the reins of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks
on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will
the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals,
bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply
lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language
and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations
increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation
an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this
reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which
may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the
savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration
of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy
on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely
destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world
is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged
with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of
the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements
made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On
what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction
on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add,
of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what
is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens
to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this
chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious
terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business
as usual in the United States Senate.
We
are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I
pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are
not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage
in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last
resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of
any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack
on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions
of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure
appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put
ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful
way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if
we allow more time."
--Senator Robert C. Byrd
