U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on the Situation in Iraq September 30, 2003 Mr. President, over the past year, I have come to the floor several times to express my concerns about the U.S. policy in Iraq. I have raised questions about what I have called the administration's ``shifting justifications'' for this war. I have raised questions, both before and after the conflict began, about the administration's plans for finding and securing weapons of mass destruction, for ensuring that the international community is willing to share the burden of reconstruction, and--perhaps most critically--for making certain our action in Iraq does not detract from or undermine the fight against terrorism. I still have many of the same concerns today. I still am not confident that the American people have gotten all the answers and all the information they deserve. Now many in the administration clearly do not want to talk about weapons of mass destruction in too much detail. They don't really want to talk very much about distorted intelligence. These things are apparently old news in their view. We fought a war of choice. We remain deeply involved. American troops continue to die. Some don't want to talk anymore about those initial choices that were made. The President told the American people that the main reason he went to war was to prevent Iraq from using weapons of mass destruction against us. Now, however, we are told that the real reason for choosing to go to war in Iraq was to tip off a set of, in effect, democratizing dominos that will change the face of the modern Middle East, perhaps even the entire Muslim world, and then, in so doing, defeat the forces of terrorism. I guess that seems to be the general thrust of the argument. I don't believe it is a good thing for our democracy or for our standing in the world to switch arguments for a war in midstream. But I do think this idea that the administration is putting forth now, after having moved from many other justifications, also deserves to be seriously and critically considered by this Congress, especially given how often the administration is now invoking this idea that we are going to create a domino effect of democracy throughout the Middle East by invading Iraq and setting up a government there. Let us consider three propositions that have been repeated by the administration in recent weeks. First, the assertion that Iraq is now the central front in the fight against terrorism--not Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia, not Southeast Asia, or east Africa or the central Asian states of the former Soviet Republic, Mr. President, but Iraq as the central focus of the war against terrorism. In support of this assertion, the administration can, of course, point to the influx of terrorists into Iraq since the United States military campaign began. The country was not, however, a hotbed of terrorist activity directed at American interests before that campaign. But the administration appears to be making a much broader point based on a sort of new domino theory for our new century. This time, instead of propping up dominoes threatened by the forces of communism, we are tipping them over in the name of democracy. By tipping the Iraqi domino, we will change the entire Arab world--or perhaps even the entire Muslim world--or so the argument goes--and this in turn will lead to the demise of the terrorist forces that have attacked America. In other words, what the administration is really saying is that Iraq is now the central battle in the fight against terrorism because this is where we choose to tip the domino. How likely is it that the battle for the future of the Middle East or the future of modern Islam is going to be fought at a place and time of American choosing? Are we really that all-knowing or that all-powerful? I agree that a battle of ideas and wills is underway in the region. I am not at all sure that this kind of battle can be influenced by U.S. military action or a U.S. occupation--at least not in the way we would hope. I am even less sure that invading and occupying Iraq in an attempt to establish a beachhead for democracy will help us in the campaign against terror. It is that campaign against terror that we should be focused upon. How likely is it that the plans and capacities of terrorists operating, let's say, in the Philippines or Indonesia will be greatly affected by the outcome in Iraq? How about the forces still present along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Will a blow for democracy in Iraq wipe them out? Most importantly, are we more secure? Are we on a firmer footing in the fight against terrorism if we somehow convince ourselves that this is so? Are we on the right track when the Vice President refuses to acknowledge that we know of no real link between Iraq and the attacks of September 11, and then goes on to insist that the Saudis are good partners in the fight against terrorism, as he did on ``Meet The Press'' earlier this month? There is something else happening here. I fear that there is. Are we getting distracted, muddled in our thinking, when it comes to our first national security priority? I fear that we actually endanger our security and detract from the fight against terrorism if we all accept this new domino theory as fact. I can remember hearing a domino theory before, when American troops were fighting a different war. It was an overly simplistic idea that just did not capture all of the different agendas at play in the world--the nationalistic, the self-serving, and the corrupt, to name a few. I am highly skeptical that this theory is any more useful or accurate today. That earlier conflict also taught me that the right thing to do is to ask hard questions. That is the right thing for the country and the right thing for our brave men and women in uniform. GEN Anthony Zinni made a good point when he spoke earlier this month at the Marine Corps Association and the U.S. Naval Institute Forum. He said the following: This is the greatest treasure that the United States has, our enlisted men and women. And when we put them in harm's way, it had better count for something. ......They should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for the fighting ..... but for the aftermath and winning that war. ......Our feelings and our sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore never again would we do that. We swore never again would we allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again? This is what was said by General Zinni in front of the Marine Corps Association of the U.S. Naval Institute. These are powerful words from one of our generals. They remind us of the stakes, and they remind us that the questions about our planning, about the wisdom and intellectual honesty of the ideas that guide it, are very much in order today. I support our troops and I support their families who are very anxiously waiting for their return. That is why it is so important to get some clarity on the nature of our involvement in Iraq and where we stand in the fight against terror. The President is, of course, right to reject the notion that one can be ambivalent about terrorism. If we don't have moral clarity when it comes to the fundamentally evil nature of acts that target innocent civilians, that murder noncombatants on a grand and gruesome scale as some sort of perverse act of political theater, then, of course, we are really lost. There is no halfway point on this. There is no middle ground. The battle against terrorism is worth fighting. It is a battle we did not begin, and it is a battle I have supported and will always support wholeheartedly. I agree with those who say that states that knowingly harbor and support our terrorist enemies are enemies themselves. That is why I voted to support using our military might in Afghanistan to defeat the forces that attacked us on September 11. I believe we have to stay focused on that goal. No evidence that has been presented to me suggests a meaningful link between Iraq and the forces that attacked on September 11--at least not prior to our invasion. Iraq was not the inevitable next battleground in our fight against terrorism. It was a battlefield that the administration chose for its own reasons and now sees as the lead domino that will start the region on the path to peace and democracy. Second, let us consider the assertion that the forces attacking Americans in Iraq do so precisely because they know we are onto something--they know that we are bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq and therefore are striking a blow against terrorism. What if they are attacking us simply because we are there, because we are present and vulnerable and easier to target in a climate of disorder and in the context of a population that regards foreign occupation, understandably, with some suspicion, even fearing that we want to install a client regime that will provide us ready access to the country's oil? Disorder creates opportunity. Consider the lead of a recent Chicago Tribune article: Smugglers on motorcycles ferry Arab insurgents across the rugged desert from neighboring Iran, while former Iraqi army officers guide anti-American Afghan veterans through minefields left over from the Iran and Iraq war. Meanwhile, militants disguised as Iranian merchants, religious pilgrims and charity truck drivers bring in illicit drugs, weapons, and explosives into Iraq to fuel the guerrilla campaign. Of course, terrorist forces do not want us to succeed in Iraq. They do not particularly want us to succeed anywhere. And America should not and cannot hesitate to take the steps we need to protect our security against terrorist threats. But what I find so disturbing about this assertion is it seems to suggest that bad news somehow vindicates current policy--that if they attack our troops, we are getting it right, that the Middle East peace process breaks down because spoilers are threatened by the winds of democratic change blowing from Iraq. Recently, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz explained away the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad and a holy shrine in Najaf by asserting that ``Terrorists recognize that Iraq is on a course towards self-government that is irreversible and, once achieved, will be an example to all in the Muslim world ..... pointing a way out of the hopelessness that extremists feed on.'' In other words, what he is saying is, these attacks happen because we are on the right track. This is a somewhat disturbing formula. Are we to interpret every new horror as an encouraging sign that we have it right, that we are really getting to the bad guys? If an increased terrorist presence and activity in Iraq tells us we are on track, what will tell us we are off track? Associated with this is a third idea--the assertion that fighting terrorists in Iraq means we will not have to fight them closer to home. I heard the President say a number of statements like this. If only this were true. Do we really believe that somehow we can attract all the terrorists to Iraq, bring them all in there and then defeat them? Do we really believe there is a finite number of terrorists whom we can finish off by goading them into attacking us in Iraq? Do any of us believe that right now terror cells are not plotting and planning and operating elsewhere in the Middle East, in East Africa, in Southeast Asia, in central Asia? Global terrorist networks would be a great deal easier to deal with if they could be contained within some national boundaries, such as Iraq, clearly identified and engaged. But this is simply not the reality we confront today. We have to be honest with ourselves about what is really accomplished in these skirmishes in Iraq in terms of the long-term security of the United States. Unquestionably, there is value in helping the people of Iraq take control of their own destiny. I am enthusiastic about helping the forces fighting for democracy and accountability and human rights around the world to triumph because I believe their success will create a more stable and just world for my children and my children's children to live in. And there are very real threats associated with allowing Iraq to become a failed state--the same kind of threats I have warned are associated with weak states elsewhere, including weak and failed states in sub-Saharan Africa. To tell ourselves this is the central front of the fight against terrorism strikes me as more dangerous self-delusion, and we cannot afford to be anything less than clear and focused and relentless in fighting the forces that attacked this country on September 11. That task is complex. It requires military strength, but military strength alone is not sufficient. It also requires international cooperation in sharing intelligence, disrupting terrorist communications, and planning and cutting off their access to financial resources. It requires international good will to sustain that kind of cooperation, and it requires a robust public diplomacy effort founded on respect and honesty so we can win the trust of those who fear we are hostile toward Islam and the Arab world. We have a lot of work to do, both in Iraq and in the fight against terrorism. This is as serious business as we will ever confront. Lives are on the line--the lives of Americans both in and out of uniform. Rather than relying on simplistic theories and constantly shifting justifications, we need to be honest about the threats we face and the means to overcome them. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

# # #