Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention an editorial written by Lieutenant Colonel Craig Mayer (ret.) of Bedford, Pennsylvania. Lt. Col. Mayer is a former U.S. Department of Defense attache and served as a member of…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention an editorial written by Lieutenant Colonel Craig Mayer (ret.) of Bedford, Pennsylvania. Lt. Col. Mayer is a former U.S. Department of Defense attache and served as a member of the United States Marines during the Vietnam War. On March 7, 2003 Colonel Mayer wrote an eloquent editorial that describes not only his reflections of war, but also made a compelling case in support of military action against Saddam Hussein. I urge my colleagues to keep the following article in mind as the debate concerning Iraq continues;
When I think of America going to war with Iraq, what comes
to mind first is the distinct, sickeningly sweet smell and
the fell of dark, sticky blood as I helped drag a horribly
wounded young Marine to a medevac helicopter. And the memory
of picking up the
young Marine's boot--most of his lower leg still in it--and
tossing it into the helicopter. It's the odor of gunpowder
and sweat, screams of agony, a green jungle haze, the
confusing noise of whirling helicopter blades, Viet Cong
machine gun fire, and gasping, wide-eyed men.
I suffer no illusions about the real costs of war and have
no impulse to go fight again or send others into the hellish
experience I survived in Vietnam.
Why then should we indulge this obscenity again with Iraq?
What is at stake? And is it worth the sacrifice?
The debate on the impending war is more, much more, about
power and competing worldviews--within America and within the
community of nations--than it is or ever was about Saddam's
threats and misadventures. The issue is not really about
inspections, adequate justification, sham cooperation, or any
sincere belief that Saddam Hussein will ever willingly
disarm, the debate is about the constraint of American power.
Iraq is the stage for a test of those worldviews.
One view seeks to avoid the use of military power to bring
about the rule of law and instead relies on persuasion,
negotiation, cooperation, and international institutions. It
rationalizes and tolerates threats because its proponents
really can't do anything about them. This view is borne of
decades of global security and prosperity provided by the
United States. It is a view grounded in strategic weakness.
The competing view, the American power view, looks to
military power along with the means and willingness to use it
as essential for a state of security to create peaceful
solutions and the rule of law to govern and grow. It sees
international forums and processes as less than reliable. It
perceives risks differently and is less willing to tolerate
threats because it can do something about them. It is a
position grounded in strategic strength.
These opposing views are now colliding. Both views desire
the rule of law and peaceful solutions to international
problems, but their means are at odds.
Those nations and people of the power adverse view will
encounter and confront us simply because we are the only
power on the world stage with the means to shape and effect
global security. Only by constraining American power can they
gain a relative advantage and advance or validate their view.
Since the end of World War II, Europe and much of the rest of
the world has depended on and has been responsive to American
power and our ability to globally project that power--be it
in economic or military terms. Our power is now enormous and
unprecedented in world history.
Adherents of the power adverse view, most notably France,
Germany, and less so Russia, have chosen the Iraq crisis and
the forums of the U.N. Security Council and NATO to confront
us. We should not be misled by their public assertions or how
they or their supporters would like to frame the
international debate in the important days ahead. Behind all
their coming challenges to intelligence information, appeals
for peace, attempts at redefining compliance, pleas for
delays, excuses for Iraqi resistance, and bleats about
smoking guns is the objective of constraining American
power--irrespective of any concerns about Iraq. This is the
central and fundamental objective.
There is overwhelming justification for the coerced
disarmament of Iraq--the justification threshold was passed
years ago.
No greater damage could be done to the maintenance of a
stable world order and global security than to succumb to the
instincts and wants of those confronting us. The stakes in
this encounter are quite high--perhaps more so than at
anytime in the past half century. If the power adverse
proponents prevail, it will weaken their security and
severely undermine the effectiveness of the U.N. Security
Council and NATO--paradoxically, the very institutions they
hope to rely on. If they prevail, global security decisions
will be thrown into forums and processes that promise little
more than delay, equivocation, indecision, and paralysis.
Something the world cannot afford in the face of immediate
threats and mounting dangers. At the same time, France,
Germany, and Russia are not our enemies--they are simply
wrong. It is not time for their view to prevail and if
history is a teacher that time will probably never come.
The young Marine that I helped drag to a helicopter 34
years ago died a few hours after he was wounded. Our company
commander wrote a letter to his parents. The family was
presented a purple heart and their son's name was chiseled
into the marble monument in Washington.
In the impending war dying is at stake, suffering is at
stake, and misery for loved ones left behind is at stake. It
is obscene. But the harsh reality is that we live in an
anarchic world of walls and the security and defense of a
progressive, stable world order depends on military might and
this is one of the roles we play. I know that these words
provide little solace for the parents of a young Marine we
lost years ago. I know that they will not fill the voids in
our lives we now feel and that might be created in the days
and weeks ahead. I only hope that they might help.
If I thought the impending War with Iraq was a contemporary
Vietnam, an ill-conceived and misunderstood venture, I would
be one of the first to object. It isn't, and I do not object.