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.
Winning the War in Iraq
In 2002, a bipartisan majority in Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize the President to use military force to defend the national security of the United States against the threats posed by Saddam Hussein – including his regime’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile development – and enforce all Iraq-related U.N. Security Council resolutions.
The United States and our coalition allies waged an ambitious campaign ever since to counter those threats, deny the terrorists a safe haven in Iraq from which to launch attacks against the United States and our allies, and foster a free and prosperous Arab democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
In the span of only a few years, what was a tyrannical, evil regime was replaced by a popularly elected government. A new constitution was drafted by the Iraqi government and approved by the Iraqi people, who went on to choose representatives to a new government in free and fair elections. Political and military control has largely been returned to the Iraqi government, though U.S. forces continue to play a key role in putting down terrorist and insurgent forces.
Recent success against the terrorists is largely attributable to decisions made in 2007, when then-President Bush appointed General David Petraeus to the command of U.S. forces in Iraq and ordered a surge of 20,000 soldiers to carry out General Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy, which imposed significant political, economic, and military requirements on the new Iraqi government.
The “surge” of U.S. forces led to undeniable security and political gains in Iraq. As a result, it also allowed U.S. troops to begin returning home as security in key parts of Iraq improved. The Iraqi military further demonstrated its growing capability by ensuring a secure and successful election in January 2009.
Despite the considerable progress our soldiers and the Iraqi people have achieved, the gains remain fragile and reversible. It is, therefore, important that further decisions affecting our troops be based upon conditions on the ground – not on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.
If the terrorists succeed in Iraq, a civil war would almost certainly ensue, resulting in hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths. And 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.
Both the Bush administration and the current administration understand the challenge presented in Afghanistan. The new administration has already announced that 17,000 new troops will be added to our forces there.
The U.S. provides more than half of the soldiers deployed to Afghanistan, yet several of our European allies prohibit their soldiers from taking part in combat operations against Taliban and al Qaeda insurgents fighting the democratically elected government. Success in Afghanistan depends on our European allies pulling their share of the weight.
It is also critical that we continue to work with Pakistan to pursue the terrorists who are operating in the mountains along that country’s northwest border with Afghanistan. These militants are responsible for the deaths of many innocent Pakistani civilians, as well as U.S. and allied military personnel. Continuing, close cooperation between the U.S. and Pakistani governments will ensure that important military and intelligence successes are not squandered.
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, therefore, 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 and end its proliferation of ballistic missile technology 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 conduct illicit uranium enrichment activities represents a particular threat to the international community.
Near the end of 2008, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran had produced enough low enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. Iran has not yet weaponized that material – several steps are required before it can do so – but the trend is clear: if left unchecked, Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
The United Nations Security Council unanimously passed four resolutions imposing sanctions and requiring other member states to apply political and economic pressure to force Iran to honor its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Unfortunately, the world has not responded to the Security Council’s demand that it act against Iran’s destabilizing behavior with sufficient resolve, largely because of the lack of cooperation from Russia and China.
The United States must, therefore, be prepared to pursue a variety of options to check Iran’s nuclear ambitions and hold that country accountable for its actions. With that in mind, I have supported measures intended 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 Bush administration subsequently implemented new sanctions against the IRGC.
Iran is susceptible to other pressure from the United States and its allies as well. For example, despite Iran’s tremendous crude oil reserves, it relies on huge volumes of imported gasoline to meet its domestic demand. Pressuring suppliers to reduce their exports of fuel to Iran could force the regime in Tehran to choose between fuel for the Iranian people and its expensive agenda of nuclear weapons development, financing of global terrorist networks, and development and proliferation of missile technology.
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. Within days of President Obama’s election, Iran conducted a series of ballistic missile tests and used a ballistic missile to launch a satellite into space, clearly demonstrating its increasing capability.
The need to defend against such threats was first recognized by President Ronald Reagan a quarter century ago, and development of missile defenses continued in earnest throughout the Bush administration. In 2001, recognizing the threat resulting from accidental missile launch – and the grave threat that ballistic missiles could be used by terrorists or rogue nations against the U.S. and our allies – the United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which had prevented us from developing and deploying our own missile defenses. I led the fight in the Senate to scrap that obsolete treaty, which had been negotiated with a country that no longer existed – the Soviet Union – and deploy missile defenses as soon as possible.
We have made great strides in recent years in developing an operational missile defense. Building on the Initial Operational Capability originally declared in 2005, the Missile Defense Agency has continued to develop, deploy, and integrate ground-based interceptors, sea-based interceptors, additional Patriot units, and sensors based on land, at sea, and in space.
Despite this progress, however, we have foregone promising research into other new means of defense, including space-based missile defenses. Our nation’s leading military commanders have repeatedly urged Congress to fund the study of a space-based element to our ballistic missile defense system. Yet, opponents have instead advocated the negotiation of a treaty to ban space-based weapons. The problem is, such a treaty won’t work. State Department experts have warned that “the inherent nature of space systems…denies effective verification in any negotiation,” meaning that any limits imposed by such a treaty could not be verified or enforced.
Last year, I helped secure funding to enable the Department of Defense to initiate a study that could provide a roadmap, both for a future defense against ballistic missile attack as well as a defense of our critical national security space systems. A space-based system may be the most effective way to protect the United States, our allies, and deployed military forces from ballistic missile attack.
I strongly support 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 supported, and Congress approved, significant increases in the U.S. defense budget since September 11, 2001. These increases 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 related to missile defense, and the procurement of badly needed defense equipment. Congress 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 to increase the size of our Army and Marine Corps, and ensure that our military can sustain the concerted effort required to win the war against the terrorists.
It has raised retirement pay for those who have served more than 30 years, authorized payment of over 20 types of bonuses and special pays, and worked 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 has also approved significant increases in veterans’ health-care funding, and increases in service-related benefits. 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.
When I served as a senior member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I participated in a joint Senate-House investigation that was intended to identify shortcomings in our intelligence community and develop appropriate solutions. The Committee held a series of hearings and ultimately drafted legislation to reorganize U.S. intelligence agencies. With the passage of that sweeping intelligence reform legislation in 2004, the United States began the difficult task of reorganizing and optimizing its intelligence gathering, analysis, and dissemination functions.
Additional legislation that I supported was signed into law in July 2008. It modernized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to ensure that our intelligence agencies have the legal authorities they need to keep ahead of the evolving technology used by terrorists. For more information about the FISA modernization bill, click here.
As Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, I invite you to visit the Subcommittee’s
website – as well as the border
security, 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.
