Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this series of hearings on the possibility of war with Iraq. There is no more important constitutional responsibility for Members of Congress than the decision to declare war. The threshold for this decision has to be high. Before the lives of America's youth are risked in a war against Iraq, a compelling case has to be made as to why the threat is immediate, why American interests are at stake, and whether the outcome is peace or more instability.
The burden has to be on those advocating war to justify why America's youth need to risk their future. We do not have a draft today. Our sailors and soldiers are volunteers but they are not mercenaries. We must take extra care to ensure that we do not endanger unnecessarily the lives of those who serve today. This is especially important because we will be asking American troops to do something that the Iraqi people are unable or unwilling to do themselves: rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein.
The need to justify such a course of action is particularly critical in the case of Iraq because, first, President Bush is advocating a pre-emptive strike against a potential threat to the American homeland when, traditionally, America has never sought war by striking first nor has America sought foreign entanglements, and, secondly, because we will be embarking on a process of democratic nation-building in a country and region of the world with little experience in democracy.
Thomas Friedman in an article entitled "Iraq, Upside Down," in Wednesday's New York Times - and I ask unanimous consent that his article be published in the hearing record following my comments - disagrees with the argument that we should go to war with Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. He argues instead that democracy building is a more important objective if we want to end of cycle of hatred and poverty breeding generations of terrorists.
I agree with Mr. Friedman that this is an important objective and perhaps should be our key objective, but it is an extraordinarily difficult one. If we are going to succeed at it, we will not be able to do it alone. It will require the active support and the willing commitment of the international community. An American force occupying Baghdad will not be sufficient. We have already seen in Afghanistan that the limited deployment of American troops to isolated areas has not established a permanent climate of security and stability in that country. Just as a lasting peace in Afghanistan will require a long and sustained commitment by the international community both in terms of soldiers and humanitarian assistance, a similar peace in Iraq will require an equal commitment.
For this reason, I believe that we must work to gain multilateral support for our policy in Iraq. I commend the President for going to the United Nations for a new resolution establishing firm conditions and time-lines for compliance by Saddam Hussein. Just as General Myers indicates in his submitted testimony today that our joint war fighting team will act "in concert with our partners" to defeat Iraq's military, if we are going to engage in a policy of nation-building in lands far from our shores, we are going to need as well to act in concert with the international community.
I look forward to the testimony and the additional hearings that the Committee intends to hold on this subject.
