Joe Biden, U.S. Senator for Delaware

February 10, 2003

Usually, at this time of year, I would have come here to speak primarily about the President’s budget proposals. Now, our primary concern is war and peace. But we can’t talk about one without talking about the other. So let me briefly comment on the budget before I give you my take on the international situation.

Let me say at the outset, and I know some of you will disagree, the President can’t have it both ways.

He can’t call on this country to go to war, send our men and women in uniform into harm’s way, and then cut the resources of the federal government to stand behind them.

As the stock market reminds us every day, there’s enormous uncertainty that comes with the prospect of going to war. But, in my view, you can’t tie the government’s hands when we have all said how important it is to fund homeland security, continue the war on terrorism, and, now, look seriously at the prospects of a war in Iraq. And let me say this – never before in modern times have we gone to war and, at the same time, cut taxes.

Not to mention cutting them in the face of ballooning deficits.

Over the past two years we’ve gone from a projected surplus of 5.6 trillion dollars over ten years to 2.1 trillion in deficits for the next decade.

We’ve been down this road before, and we paid a high price. During the decades of deficits, we paid hundreds of billions of dollars in interest on the national debt, getting nothing for the hard-earned tax dollars we collected to do that.

We had higher interest rates because the government was borrowing from capital markets and pushing private borrowers – from corporations to car buyers, from small businessmen to homeowners – to the end of the line.

When we finally got rid of deficits, by making hard choices, we enjoyed the longest strongest period of economic growth in history. Astonishingly, this Administration is now telling us that deficits don’t really matter all that much. Budget Director Mitch Daniels told us last month that we’ve returned to an era of deficits, but now he said, “we ought not hyperventilate about this issue.” He said it with a straight face.

Alan Greenspan, on the other hand, warned us last September that “an abandonment of fiscal discipline will eventually push up interest rates, crowd out capital spending, lower productivity growth, and force hard choices on us in the future.”

Amazingly, the budget assumes that the big tax cut passed in 2001 will expire, as current law requires in 2010. But the President wants to make it permanent – at a cost of an additional 665 billion dollars. And that doesn’t include the cost of the stimulus package that would, with interest, add another 900 billion dollars, almost a trillion dollars more, to the deficits over the next ten years.

I’m not sure these numbers add up.

Today, we face budget deficits over 300 billion dollars in the next two years. But those numbers, and future deficit projections, as disturbing as they are, don’t even reflect the huge cost of a war with Iraq, or the cost of managing the repercussions of such a war. It could run to the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Look, as war becomes a more certain prospect, our first duty is to make sure we’re strong enough and well enough equipped to meet the challenge and compete the mission.

Now is not the time to handcuff our budget with massive deficits or irresponsible spending.

For years I came here and the one thing you all told me was that we had to balance the budget. Well, we did. And we even paid down the debt. Now look where we’re going.

Having said that, let me turn to the prospects of war in Iraq, and then briefly mention the situation on the Korean peninsula.

There’s an old quote. I’m not sure who said it. It was from a seventeenth century theological treatise.

It said, “Peace is not an absence of war; it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, and justice.”

Peace is always the goal, but sometimes war is the only course. Sometimes war is necessary – as it may be in Iraq. And sometimes diplomacy is the better part of prudence – as it is in North Korea.

Either way, the goal is the same: doing what’s necessary to make the world more secure, not less secure.

War is everyone’s business. The nation is mobilizing for it. But there are questions. There are fears. There’s uncertainty and doubt. We’re told it will be a potentially short war, but – let’s be clear – winning the peace could be a much more daunting task. I’m not certain Americans understand what it will take to hold the separate parts of Iraq together once Saddam is gone. I’m not certain they’ve been fully informed as to how we plan on balancing the conflicting interests of the Kurds and the Turkmen in the north and the Shi’a in the south.

I’m not certain Americans are fully aware that we will have to commit ourselves to staying in Iraq for a significant period of time.

It will mean doing something the President has said he would not do, and that is nation building.

Nation building is a word the Administration may not like, but something that may be necessary if we are to ultimately secure the weapons of mass destruction and stabilize the country, make sure a government is in place that won’t reignite the fuse.

This week Secretary Powell brought America’s case to the United Nations. He showed the world compelling evidence that Saddam is in material breach of United Nations resolutions.

He made the case. He made it forthrightly and he made it well. I may not agree completely with every detail of what he said or the implications of every detail.

But bringing the case to the United Nations was the right thing to do. Solidarity in the United Nations Security Council is the best means to avoid war. Let me repeat that. Only when Saddam realizes there is a strong international consensus will he stop trying to drive a wedge between the U.S. and our allies. Consensus is our best and probably our last chance to concentrate his mind clearly about his choice of war or peace.

While a second UN resolution isn’t a requirement, and while we can win a war on our own, we are much better off if we have the support of the UN and a broad coalition.

I think we’ll have the French with us eventually. The Germans will not be with us. They’ll abstain. But there will be a coalition when and if the time comes.

The harder part will begin AFTER the war, with what will likely be a lengthy and costly period of nation building and/or occupation.

It’s better to have our allies with us on the take off so they’ll be with us on the landing. Just as importantly, we need the American people with us on the take off.

The challenge is for the President to be straight with the American people. I do not believe they have, as of yet, been fully informed of what is expected of them to win the war, and what will be expected to win the peace.

Let everyone here be absolutely clear: I supported the resolution to go to war. I am NOT opposed to war to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. I am NOT opposed to war to remove Saddam from those weapons if it comes to that. But the lesson of the past is clear.

To sustain any foreign policy – especially when it comes to war – it is absolutely essential that the American people be completely and thoroughly informed as to what to expect or they will lose their resolve quickly.

I’ve urged the Presdient to be straightforward with the American people about the burden they will be asked to shoulder.

They’re being told the war in Iraq will be a short war, essentially bloodless, and Johnny will come marching home again in several weeks, if not several months. They’re being told the war will be prosecuted quickly and successfully and I believe that may well be true.

Our military is the strongest in the world. The best in the world. The most powerful military force history has known.

Let me tell you – on December 8th I was in Qatar being briefed by General Franks, witnessing the war games that were being conducted. We were assembled in a secure room – a gigantic hanger with a huge movie screen. There were around a hundred high ranking officers.

I’ve never seen so many stars in my life other than when I was a kid looking up at a clear summer night.

I was asked, being briefed by these officers, whether or not I would address the assembled crowd, all active military personnel planning this war.

I’ve got to tell you, these men and women to a person were ready to go and were secure in their knowledge that they would successfully complete their mission by defeating Saddam Hussein, if ordered to do so.

They’re prepared. They’re ready. They know what’s expected of them and they know what must be done.

What they were unsure of was us – the politicians. Whether we were willing to tell the American people exactly what was likely to be asked of them. Whether we were willing to tell them the cost of the war. The economic disruption it will cause, and explain how we can have the first wartime tax cut in history while we face a potentially prolonged engagement.

Those troops wanted to know whether the American people were going to be willing to give them the support they would need over the long haul, not the short haul. And, make no mistake, it will be a long haul, no matter how quickly and successfully we wage the war.

In my view, it could take from one to five years to win the peace and may take as many as 75,000 troops to secure victory with a cost of 20 billion dollars or more.

The point is, we have every reason to have faith in our military. But while it is reasonable to expect the best, it would be irresponsible not to prepare for the worst.

Iraq could start giving away its weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. It could create a humanitarian nightmare among the Kurds in the north and the Shi’a in the south, denying them food and medicine, even use chemical weapons against them. Saddam has done it in the past and could do it again.

Maybe none of these things will occur, but if we prosecute this war without the American people fully aware of the possibilities – without understanding the consequences – without an explanation of the implications of our actions around the world, we will be hard pressed to win the peace and even harder pressed to win the hearts and minds of the world.

To be honest, some in the Administration think it doesn’t matter what other nations think. All that matters is that we win, because everybody loves a winner. That’s wrong! Dead wrong! Let me tell you, it matters.

It matters because our basic immediate interests cannot be fully secured without longer term cooperation with other nations.

We must convince them, not coerce them.

Our allies in Europe resent it when they hear us saying that Europe is tired, indecisive, and ultimately unwilling to do what’s necessary to keep the peace.

They resent it when they hear us say that Europe commands too much of our resources and attention. We must understand that words matter and how we convey our values matters deeply.

Let me give you an example. There’s a new government in Turkey, led by an Islamic party.

That Islamic party is, in turn, led by Prime Minister Gul and the party chief, Erdogan. They have decided they want Turkey to remain a secular state and they want to be integrated into Europe and the West. It is very much in the the interest of the United States of America – very much – that happens.

We do not want an Islamic state in Turkey. We want a secular state looking West. Turkey can be a predominantly Muslim but secular, democratic and modernizing state.

We could have essentially bought their support to allow us to launch military strikes against Iraq from Turkey.

But if we did that, without winning the support of the Turkish people – 85 percent of whom are unalterably opposed to war with Iraq and unalterably opposed to their government cooperating with us – we may meet our immediate goal and lose a lot more down the road.

So what happens if we go to war and we launch from Turkey with the support of the new Islamic leadership but without the support of the people. Well, the majority of this Islamic party that is radically Islamic will play to its populist instincts and cause incredible trouble for the existing administration in Turkey.

And, I believe, ultimately they will force the leadership to move away from their commitment of a secular, westward-looking state. We’ve already seen backsliding in Afghanistan where one war lord is returning to the repressive customs of the Taliban.

I’m reminded of that old Biblical proverb – what does it profit a man if he gains the world and loses his soul – what does it profit us if our actions and our methods, without world opinion behind us, without being circumspect about our words and our actions – what does it profit us if the end result is that we radicalize the Islamic world?

So what do we do now? First, it is clear that Saddam is in material breach and the world must act.

Second, we must lower the rhetoric. We cannot appear to be a petulant nation.

Third, if we are to go to war, we must tell the American people what is expected of them and what will be necessary to win the peace.

Fourth, we must clearly articulate our commitment, once the war is over, to stay until there is a stable Iraq – that, after Saddam is removed from power, we will, we must, we have to engage in nation building.

Make no mistake, we will win the war, but, if we are to win the peace, we must have the American people with us on the take-off, if we want them with us on the landing.

They have no idea what’s expected of them.

They do not know what the cost will be to remove Saddam, and they should.

They do not know how many troops – how many of you – will have to stay in Iraq to secure the country. They do not know whether we can count on our friends and allies to share the burden once the war is over. They do not know whether we can afford to attack Iraq, fully fund homeland security, have the first wartime tax cut in history, finish the unfinished war on terrorism in Afghanistan and other places, fund missile defense, equip our military, take care of veterans and the elderly at even current inadequate levels, not to mention crime, drugs, education, and cops on the street.

But let’s be clear. These questions are not excuses for inaction.

They are not a reason to wait. They are not a rationale for standing down. The American people support the President. We are in this together. We stand with our troops. We support them. But, if we are to win the peace as well as the war, let’s not forget the lessons of the past. To sustain any foreign policy, to further our interests around the world and make us more secure, the best thing we can do is have the informed consent of the American people before we got to war with Iraq.

Now let’s talk for a minute about North Korea and what the difference is between the two crises.

The challenge is clear. We must stop North Korea from going into serial production of fissile material and nuclear weapons.

The threats are real but our options are few.

Some support a military strike to take out North Korean nuclear facilities. I don’t think we should ever rule out force, but in this case it’s hardly an attractive option – it must be a last option.

Even if we could destroy the North’s nuclear facilities – and I would note, parenthetically that we don’t even know where many of them are – the risk of sparking a general war on the peninsula would be very real.

And let’s be clear, it would be a messy bloody war. North Korea forward deployed artillery tubes can hit Seoul without warning from hardened firing positions.

There are also political obstacles to a military strike. South Korea and Japan strongly oppose any attempt to use military force to compel the North’s nuclear disarmament.

As for sanctions, we don’t have many arrows left in the quiver. We’ve already cut off North Korea’s access to international loans and the U.S. technology. Moreover, the North’s largest trading partners, China and South Korea, are opposed to pressure tactics.

Wise handling of this evolving challenge on the Korean peninsula must, therefore, rely on diplomacy.

We must make every effort to convince North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-il, that his pursuit of nuclear weapons makes him less secure, not more secure.

We must try to convince him that if North Korea behaves responsibly, it will find true peace on the Korean peninsula, and its people will enjoy the benefits of that peace.

That’s going to be a tough sell, but, in the case of North Korea, war is not an answer.

Having said that, these are not easy decisions. Certainly going to war in Iraq has not been an easy decision, but before we make it we must be fully aware of the consequences and the costs. Tom Paine said: “War involves in its progress such a train of unforseen and unsupposed circumstances that no human wisdom can calculate the end.”

He was right. We may not be able to calculate the end, but we must be informed at the beginning about the costs and consequences of our actions, and what will be expected of us to win not only the war, but to win the peace.