STATEMENT OF U.S. SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
More Questions Than Answers on Iraq

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to express my growing concern that we may shortly be faced with a decision to unilaterally invade another nation-state, and that is the State of Iraq.

This concern has been heightened by the news of today's assassination attempt of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kandahar. Earlier on, a car bomb exploded in central Kabul, killing at least 22 people.

This event, in my view, underscores the point that our primary focus must remain on our immediate war on terrorism being waged in troubled Afghanistan, where our soldiers are on the front line. As a matter of fact, preliminary reports indicate it was Americans who took down the attempted assassins.

While I welcome President Bush's recent statement indicating he will seek congressional approval of such a use of force, I believe any action in Iraq at this time, without allied support, without United Nations support, and without a compelling case for just cause, would be both morally wrong and politically mistaken.

I just returned from a trip to Europe. As part of my role as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, I toured U.S. military bases and met with a variety of individuals. They included members of the intelligence community, the military, and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

I was shocked at how dramatically perceptions in Europe have shifted since September 11 toward our country.

All of the sympathy and concern we received in the wake of the terrorist attacks has apparently vanished, replaced by the sense that the United States is becoming an arrogant and aggressive power, a nation that simply gives orders, a nation that neither listens nor hears.

When I was in Europe, much attention was given to the absence of the President's participation at the Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.

And this, on top of our rejection of the Kyoto treaty, our casting of aspersions on international accords such as the International Criminal Court, the Anti-Ballistic Missile and Landmine treaties, has led to a growing belief, right or wrong, that the United States is using its power in an increasingly unilateral and somewhat arrogant manner.

Above all, there is our approach to Iraq and our perceived readiness to invade that nation unilaterally.

I believe we have to ask many critical questions, most of which are unanswered.

Questions about the ongoing war on terrorism. How do we stay the course, root out terrorism and, at the same time, initiate war with a nation-state which, to this day, remains unconnected to 9/11?

Questions about the extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and about who will get to them first.

Questions about going it alone in Iraq.

Questions about casualties and cost.

Questions about collateral human damage - civilians killed in the short term and in the long run.

Questions about the future of Iraq, about whether we can honestly expect a democracy to be created out of a nation consumed by tribal factionalism.

And questions about what the long-term impact might be on the Arab world, on the Middle East. What if Iraq attacks Israel? What will we do, and what will the world do?

Present United States policy toward Iraq stands in stark contrast to how we conducted Operation Desert Storm just over a decade ago. Then, the first Bush administration spent several months building a broad-based coalition that included 30 nations, including many in the Islamic world. It sought and received resolutions supporting the use of force against Iraq from the United States Congress and the United Nations Security Council, and American and international public opinion stood firmly behind such action.

Today, no nation is firmly allied with the United States on this issue.

At the very least, I believe we should launch a major diplomatic effort with the United Nations, our allies, and our Arab friends, with the goal of delivering an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein: Either open up or go down.

If he does not comply with this demand, it will give the United States added moral and diplomatic strength to any future effort. It will help unite the world community behind us.

Additionally, I am very concerned that the United States stay the course on our war against terrorism. To date, there is no direct connection between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the 9/11 attacks that has been substantiated.

This means staying the course in our war against terrorism, part of which exists in Afghanistan. The government of Hamid Karzai is fragile at best. Today should show that.

During its first 6 months in power, two Cabinet officials have been assassinated. Today, President Karzai himself barely escaped an assassination attempt, and a major act of terrorism has killed many in central Kabul. The Karzai government must have security and stability, or it will perish and so will Afghan democracy.

Additionally, we know the Taliban and Al Qaeda lurk in the remote mountains, waiting for an opportune moment to come back. If Afghanistan cannot be stabilized, if its streets and homes cannot be made secure, and if its first democratic government cannot survive, this will be a very serious setback.

Afghanistan is our beachhead in the war on terror. We cannot lose it, or we lose the war on terror. We must put Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and a host of other terrorist groups out of business before they can strike out again at America and our interests.

That is why concentrating on this war -- the critical war against terrorism -- is so important.

An attack on Iraq at this time would only deflect from this war, by diverting attention and forces away from bringing to justice the perpetrators of 9/11. Can we afford to do this?

If there is an imminent threat to the United States or to our interests, then we must act. At this moment, however, I do not believe such a threat exists.

No one doubts that Iraq has chemical or biological weapons and the means to deliver them. They have used them on at least three occasions, but they have not used them in the last 10 years, and I believe they know what will happen if they do use them.

What is less clear, however, is the status of Iraq's nuclear weapons capability. In 1981, Israel destroyed the Osiraq reactor provided by France. While Iraq continues to seek to develop nuclear capability, there is no evidence I have found that Iraq is nuclear capable today. So there is no imminent threat.

Secretary Rumsfeld has claimed that if we wait for Iraq to develop nuclear weapons, then it will be too late. He is right. The key is to find a way to stop Iraqi nuclear ambition, and stop it now, which is why opening Iraq's borders to a search and destroy mission for weapons of mass destruction, conducted by our allies, our friends in the Arab world, and the United Nations, is critical.

I believe this requires renewed diplomatic efforts on our part, with the United Nations, with our allies, and with friendly Arab nations. We must stop Iraq from becoming nuclear capable. And the world in turn must respond. Otherwise, an attack becomes the only alternative.

As Gen. Wesley Clark recently stated: "In the war on terrorism, alliances are not an obstacle to victory. They're the key to it."

By acting unilaterally, the United States not only runs the risk of isolating these long-standing allies, but also of solidifying the entire Arab world sharply against us. This may not result in any direct or traditional military response against the United States, but what about a personal jihad throughout this country - a jihad of bombs and other terrorist acts carried out throughout the world?

There are people out there eminently capable and able to finance doing just that.

With the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not yet under control, a United States attack on Iraq would certainly fuel the fire of Islamic fanaticism, uniting the Arab world against the West and Israel. The consequences could be unprecedented and beyond our present comprehension.

The Israeli-Palestinian situation should be our highest priority. This conflict must be resolved. The United States must use its influence and leadership here, with the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the surrounding Arab world. Here, too, we must stay the course.

At the same time, there is some troubling evidence today of the preparation of a second front in southern Lebanon to attack Israel in the event we attack Iraq. Ambassador Dennis Ross recently told me of thousands -- he mentioned 10,000 -- extended-range Katyusha rockets that have been moved through Syria from Iran and into southern Lebanon, for an attack on Israel. He said the rockets had been extended so that they could hit at the major Israeli industrial zone north of Haifa. I believe this has been confirmed.

In the face of all of this, assume we do attack Iraq. Consider that we mobilize 250,000 to 300,000 soldiers, our aircraft carriers, our B-52s, our 117s. This will not be another Desert Storm where exposed Iraqi troops are routed in the open desert, overwhelmed by American airpower.

This war will be waged in Baghdad, in Tikrit, and in other cities. It will be waged from house to house and palace to palace, from street to street and school to school and hospital to hospital.

We will certainly kill many Iraqis, and how many of our own will be killed? And will we stay the course once the body bags start coming back to Dover? Will Americans stand up and say, "More?" I think not.

Then there are the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians - civilians already brutalized by the last 12 years - who will become casualties in this war.

America has never been an aggressor nation unless attacked, as we were at Pearl Harbor and on September 11, or our interests and our allies were attacked. We have never initiated a major invasion against another nation-state, which leads to the question of whether a preemptive war is the morally right, legally right, or the politically right way for the United States to proceed.

Lastly, there is the immensely complicated question of the Iraqi nation Saddam Hussein now has and what will happen if he is overthrown.

Have we really thought out our options here? Have we taken into account the deep tribal factionalism and divisions, the bitter and often bloody rivalries among the Shia majority, the ruling Sunni minority, and the Kurds, that lie at the very root of Iraq? Will we protect the Kurds from possible genocide? How long will we stay to secure a new government? And who would replace Saddam Hussein?

Let's be realistic. A democracy is not likely to emerge. One must look closely at the history of Iraq to draw such a conclusion, and I have.

Madam President, I would like to quote from the recently published book, "The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein" by Sandra Mackey. She writes:

"When [Saddam Hussein] finally loses his grip on power either politically or physically, he will leave Iraq much as it was when the British created it -- torn by tribalism and uncertain in its identity. It is this Iraq that threatens to inflict its communal grievances, its decades of non-cooperation, and its festering suspicions and entrenched hatreds on the Persian Gulf, the lifeline of our global economy."

In light of such conditions, is the United States ready to be an occupational force? It could take many years for the seeds of a stable pluralist society to flourish in Iraq. Are we really ready to spend a generation there?

Given what is at stake here -- American lives, American prestige, and America's respect for the rule of law -- we find ourselves at a critical crossroad.

Again, according to Sandra Mackey: "...the time is fast approaching when the United States, for a series of perilous reasons, will be forced to look beyond Hussein to Iraq itself. That is when all Americans will pay the price for what has been a long night of ignorance about the land between the rivers."

In closing, I am very happy to see that President Bush will now seek congressional approval regarding military action. So this debate has just begun.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress, to ensure we not only ask the questions but see that the answers are moral, see that they are legal, see that they are befitting the greatest democracy on Earth, and see whether they are worth, for the first time, the United States of America making a unilateral attack on another nation-state.