The first and foremost responsibility of our federal government is to defend the security of our nation against terrorist attack and other threats from abroad. Fulfilling that responsibility is particularly important in light of the 21st century threats of international terrorism and the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. It requires a strong military – second to none – robust intelligence networks capable of identifying and neutralizing threats before they arise, and superior homeland security.
In 2002, in response to the aggressiveness and brutality of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime and widely credited reports of Saddam’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress authorized the President to use military force to defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforce all Iraq-related U.N. Security Council resolutions.
The United States and our coalition allies are now in the midst of an ambitious mission: denying the terrorists a safe haven in Iraq from which to launch attacks against the United States and our allies, while fostering a free and prosperous Arab democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
The progress the Iraqi people have achieved thus far is undeniable. In the span of only a few years, what was a tyrannical, evil regime has been replaced by a popularly elected government and the hope for a better future. The transfer of power from the United States to the Iraqi government in June of 2004, followed by Iraqi national elections in January of 2005, the drafting of a new constitution and its approval by the Iraqi people in October of 2005, and the successful election of representatives to a new Iraqi government in December of 2005 all represent significant political achievements.
The terrorists nevertheless have continued to wage a campaign of violence against the Iraqi people and U.S. troops, and, by the beginning of 2007, it was widely recognized that our military strategy had to change in order to better counter that threat. The new strategy developed by General David Petraeus, the Commanding General of U.S. forces in Iraq, placed significant political, economic, and military requirements on the Iraqi government. It also called for an increase in the number of American forces in Iraq and a change in their mission to improve security and help the Iraqi government achieve the goals that were set.
The so-called “surge” of U.S. forces has led to undeniable security and political gains in Iraq. It has also allowed U.S. troops to begin returning home as security in key parts of Iraq has improved.
It is important that decisions affecting our troops be based upon conditions on the ground – not on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington. It would be a strategic miscalculation to telegraph to America’s enemies any limitation on how long we’re willing to stay in Iraq. Setting schedules and timetables will only provide encouragement to the insurgents who think they can outlast us in this fight.
If the terrorists succeed in Iraq, a civil war would ensue, resulting in hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths. With Iraq’s institutions shattered, Iran’s power would increase in Iraq, allowing it to expand its influence in the region. That would not only threaten the security of the United States – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already promised a “world without America” – but would also compromise our relationship with strategic allies in the region such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen that have supported us in the fight against terrorists. These issues are not divisible in the minds of our enemies or our allies. The United States cannot show a lack of commitment to win in Iraq while retaining credibility in the broader war against the terrorists.
Perhaps the greatest threat the United States faces today lies in the nexus between terrorist groups, weapons of mass destruction, and states that, either because of ideological conformity with terrorists, or simply out of convenience, would be willing to unite the two. In that regard, North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs are significant challenges facing the international community.
North Korea
In North Korea, the United States and the international community are faced with a despotic regime with an active nuclear weapons program. North Korea violated the 1994 Agreed Framework, under which it received generous economic benefits in return for a promise to abandon its nuclear weapons program. It missed three of the deadlines it voluntarily agreed to in the Six Party Process. Given this track record, any new agreements with the regime must be viewed with caution.
The United States must work with allies and others to create an environment in which North Korea will either have to agree to halt and dismantle its nuclear program or face economic collapse. This approach should combine economic isolation of the North Korean government by the United States and its allies with outreach to the North Korean people.
Iran
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already stated his intention to “wipe Israel off the map” and promised a “world without America.” His country has become the primary ideological, financial, and logistical supporter of terrorists seeking to attack the West, as well as their fellow Muslims in the name of a distorted version of Islam.
Iran’s decision to resume uranium enrichment activities represents a significant threat to the international community. The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported Iran to the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed two resolutions that imposed sanctions and required member states to apply political and economic pressure to force Iran to honor its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The Administration has reiterated its commitment to pursuing a diplomatic solution to the danger posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and I support the Administration’s effort to hold Iran accountable for its actions. I support measures to marginalize the most powerful and dangerous elements of the current government, including the mullahs’ Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In September of 2007, I sponsored an amendment with Senator Joe Lieberman that declared the IRGC to be a terrorist organization. The Senate passed the amendment, and the Administration subsequently implemented new sanctions against the IRGC. I believe the United States should work with the democratic reformers within Iran to bring about a regime change in that country that will ensure long-term security and stability in the region.
If Iran continues to develop its nuclear capability, as the recent National Intelligence Estimate makes clear it is doing, the United States and its allies always reserve the right to employ whatever means are necessary to prevent it from becoming a danger to the international community.
The proliferation of ballistic missiles, which can carry nuclear, chemical, or biological payloads, is a serious concern. Roughly two dozen countries, including North Korea and Iran, now have or are developing ballistic missiles. The need to defend against this threat was first recognized by President Ronald Reagan a quarter century ago.
In 2001, the United States did not have an operational defense against an accidental or deliberate missile launch, and was vulnerable to blackmail intended to freeze us into inaction by the very threat of missile attack. Facing a threat that had to be addressed, the United States subsequently withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which had prevented us from developing and deploying missile defenses. I led the fight in the Senate to scrap that obsolete treaty with a country that no longer existed – the Soviet Union – and deploy missile defenses as soon as possible.
While the United States is not yet totally secure from this threat, we have made great strides in recent years in developing an operational defense. Building on the Initial Operational Capability originally declared in 2005, the Missile Defense Agency is continuing to develop, deploy, and integrate ground-based interceptors, sea-based interceptors, additional Patriot units, and sensors based on land, at sea, and in space.
U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and our building of a missile defense are part of a new approach to strategic security; this approach also includes major reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. As we decrease the size of that arsenal, it will also be important to test our remaining nuclear weapons to ensure their safety and reliability. Without actual nuclear testing, it will become difficult to maintain, let alone modernize, our reduced nuclear arsenal.
I strongly support additional increases in spending over the next five years to further improve conditions for our men and women in uniform, give them the training and equipment they will need to protect the United States and defeat terrorism, and provide them with the support they need when they return from the battlefield.
With that in mind, I have supported, and Congress has approved, significant increases in the U.S. defense budget since September 11, 2001. These increases have provided pay raises for military personnel, additional funding for health care for active duty personnel and their families, counterterrorism programs to protect the U.S. homeland, research on missile defense, and the procurement of badly needed defense equipment. Congress has also passed emergency appropriations to better protect our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, including funds for up-armored Humvees and add-on ballistic protection, enhanced body armor, additional tools for defeating Improvised Explosive Devices (IED), and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAPs) vehicles.
Congress is now working with the Department of Defense on increasing the size of our Army and Marine Corps to ensure that our military can sustain the concerted effort required to win the war against the terrorists. Congress has already raised retirement pay for those who have served more than 30 years, authorizing payment of over 20 types of bonuses and special pays, and working in many other ways with the Department of Defense to ensure that our all-volunteer force is sustainable and can maintain the incredible caliber of people who make up today’s military.
Congress also approved significant increases in veterans’ health-care funding, as well as landmark Wounded Warrior legislation, which will improve health care for service members and their families. Though no amount of money can compensate for the loss of those who have put themselves in harm’s way to defend our country and our freedom, Congress has nevertheless tried to help the families left behind by increasing both fallen hero compensation and Service Members’ Group Life Insurance coverage.
If we are to identify and defend against future terrorist attacks, we must have a first-rate intelligence capability. This requires a reevaluation of our intelligence-gathering activities worldwide.
As a senior member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I participated in a joint Senate-House investigation to identify shortcomings in our intelligence community and develop solutions to fix them. The Committee held a series of hearings and ultimately generated legislation to reorganize U.S. intelligence agencies. With the passage of sweeping intelligence reform legislation in 2004, the United States began the difficult task of reorganizing and optimizing its intelligence gathering, analysis, and dissemination functions.
On July 10, 2008, the President signed into law a bill another bill that I supported. It will modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to ensure that our intelligence agencies have the legal authorities they need to keep ahead of the evolving technology used by terrorists.
It is also critical that the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies that gather intelligence do a better job of maintaining the security of their intelligence product. The disclosure of classified information damages U.S. security and hinders our ability to obtain information about future terrorist attacks.
The U.S. government has no higher responsibility than protecting its citizens. I will continue to fight to ensure that our defenses are strong and our military is equipped to defend our interests at home and abroad.
As Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, I invite you to visit the Subcommittee’s
website – as well as the border
and immigration, crime and justice,
and terrorism sections of this website – to learn about additional efforts I’ve undertaken to improve control our nation’s borders, fight terrorism, and improve homeland security.
