Mr. Speaker, recently, I attended my oldest son's eighth grade graduation, and graduating with him was Jennifer Davis, the daughter of Karen and Major Miles Davis, who could not attend because he was deployed to Iraq. Mr. Speaker, this is…
Mr. Speaker, recently, I attended my oldest son's eighth grade graduation, and graduating with him was Jennifer Davis, the daughter of Karen and Major Miles Davis, who could not attend because he was deployed to Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, this is why I believe we owe Americans an account of our progress in the world war on terror, an assessment of the situation, the stakes, and the strategy for victory in the battle for Iraq, as well as an affirmation that we will defend our country, defeat the enemy, and win this unsought struggle for survival. Unfortunately, this resolution fails to do so, for it is strategically nebulous, morally obtuse, and woefully inadequate.
This resolution sanitizes the hard truth that the enemy is trying not only to intimidate us but to kill us. It provides an abashed defense of our Nation's sovereign right to preemptively eradicate the terrorists and their state sponsors before they kill us. It implies our preemption of this threat must meet a global test for legitimacy.
It further fails to affirm the battle for Iraq was waged because Saddam Hussein's regime was a direct threat to the United States of America and was in violation of mandatory treaty obligations of said United States of America.
It fails to stress our mission is to ensure a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq at peace with the United States, its coalition partners and all other peaceable nations.
It fails to stress that terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for the United States of America, Iraq, our coalition partners and the broader Middle East.
It asserts how despite the enemy having declared Iraq a central front in the war on terror, the United States and its coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as only a part of the war on terror.
It omits any mention of the battle for Iraq's difficulties and does not offer a comprehensive strategy on how to conquer them. It overlooks the fact our troops' return home hinges upon creating Iraqi security forces and destroying the enemy's insurgency.
Finally, this resolution calls the terrorists our adversary, not our enemy.
Mr. Speaker, at the graduation I did not try to comfort Karen Davis by declaring her husband, Major Miles Davis, was in Iraq defending global peace and security or enforcing United Nations resolutions. No, I thanked Karen for her family's sacrifice because Miles was in Iraq honoring his solemn pledge to God and to us to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies.
So in this time of war when we ask the best of our troops and we ask the best of their families, we must ask the best of ourselves. We have not done so with this resolution, and that is why I will be voting ``present,'' because I am committed to victory in the war on terror.
Mr. Speaker, recently, I attended my oldest son's eighth grade graduation. Graduating with him was Jennifer Davis, the daughter of my childhood friend, Major Miles Davis, who could not attend. That night, I talked with Miles' wife, Karen, who told me how painful it was for their family to have Miles so abruptly deployed to Iraq.
Such heart rending scenes throughout our land are why I believe we owe Americans more in this resolution than a simple declaration of our resolve in Iraq. We owe them an account of our progress in the world War on Terror; an assessment of the situation, the stakes, and the strategy for victory in the battle for Iraq; and an affirmation we will defend our country, defeat the enemy, and win this unsought struggle for survival.
Thus, I rise to express my profound disappointment with this resolution before us, because it is strategically nebulous; morally obtuse; and woefully inadequate.
To begin, this resolution's purpose is limited to ``Declaring the United States will complete the mission in Iraq and prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.''
This is patently inadequate to the task at hand; and, unfortunately, under continued examination the resolution fares no better. To wit, the first ``Whereas'' clause informs us: ``. . . the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world.''
This clause elicits elementary questions: what ``values'' of ours cause our enemy to hate us; and what, precisely, is the enemy's ideology? Sadly, this clause provides no clues.
The second clause recounts how: ``. . . for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States.''
This clause is too sanitized. The hard truth is the enemy has not tried to intimidate us. The enemy has tried to kill us and too often succeeded. The enemy does so because our very existence as sovereign citizens of a free Republic constitutes a beacon of hope for all who are--and all who yearn to be--free; thus, we are our enemy's paramount obstacle to world dominion.
Next the third clause right asserts: ``. . . it is essential to the security of the American people and to world security that the United States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance.''
Agreed. But this clause must stress both a philosophic principle and a strategic tenet.
Philosophically, any state-sponsor of terror is a threat to the United States, because terrorism is an attack upon the self-evident, inalienable human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Strategically, this clause falters as an oblique and abashed defense of our Nation's sovereign right to preemptively eradicate terrorists and their state-sponsors before they kill us. Instead, the clause must reaffirm our Nation's full right of self-defense.
The seventh clause decries how: ``. . . by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions.''
Bluntly, this clause omits the obvious: By early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against the United States of America and was in violation of mandatory treaty obligations to the United States of America.
By omitting the fact Hussein's regime deemed the United States not as just a part of the global community, but as a mortal enemy, this clause wrongly implies our preemption of his threat must and does meet a ``global test'' for legitimacy.
The eighth clause reiterates: ``. . . the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors.''
Again, the point is missed. Our mission is to transform Iraq from a rogue dictatorship aiding terrorists into a representative democracy eradicating terrorists; and into a sovereign, free, secure, and united nation at peace with the United States, its Coalition partners, and all other peaceable nations.
Next, clause eleven's belief: ``. . . the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East,'' also misses the point. As an American, I believe the clause should read: ``the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for the United States of America, Iraq, our Coalition partners, and the broader Middle East.''
Now, at last, we reach the resolution's three lethal failings:
To start with, taken together, the ninth and fifteenth clauses raise a stark conundrum. Ignoring that the United States, in word and deed, first targeted Iraq as a ``central front'' in our War on Terror, clause nine notes: ``the terrorists have declared Iraq to be a central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology.''
Later, clause fifteen asserts: ``. . . the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terrorism.''
These clauses' collective conundrum is this: if, after we militarily deposed Hussein, the terrorist enemy now deems Iraq a central front in its ``war against all those who oppose their ideology,'' why do we now view Iraq as but ``part of the Global War on Terror''? Upon this critical question and its ramifications, the resolution is silent.
The resolution's second lethal failing is found, interestingly enough, in clause twelve, which offers hopeful news of how we, our Coalition partners, and the Iraqis have: ``. . . scored impressive victories in Iraq, including finding and killing the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.''
Well said. But nowhere does this resolution explain the battle for Iraq's past, present, and future difficulties, or proffer any concrete or comprehensive strategy as to how U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi forces will confront and conquer
these challenges. One irony proves the point. My allotted time to speak on this amendment is under the section dedicated to Iraqi reconstruction. Yet nowhere in this resolution appears the word ``reconstruction.''
The resolution's final, and paramount, failing occurs in clause thirteen, which assures us: ``. . . Iraqi security forces are, over time, taking over from the United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight against terror in Iraq.''
This clause's logic implies the enemy will remain operationally active in Iraq when our military leaves the battlefield. This implication stems from the incessant lack of emphasis accorded the concomitant and equal pillar of the administration's military strategy in Iraq. Specifically, the time required to win and bring our troops home hinges upon creating Iraqi security forces and destroying the enemy's insurgency. Continuing to emphasize the creation of security forces while de-emphasizing the destruction of the terrorists' insurgency, will only lengthen the time required to accomplish the mission in Iraq and welcome our troops back.
Mr. Speaker, my time grows short, so, in conclusion, I will focus on the one word in the resolved clause which, in fact, inexplicably permeates the resolution; and, inexorably, precludes my support of this resolution. The offending word is ``adversary.''
Starkly and sanely understood, within Iraq and the overarching world War on Terror we do not have an adversary. We have an enemy. Thus, because words have meaning, even if I could ignore the fact this resolution is strategically nebulous, I will not overlook the fact it lacks the moral clarity to call the terrorists our enemy.
Mr. Speaker, at St. Edith's eighth grade graduation, I did not try to comfort Karen by declaring her husband Major Miles Davis was in Iraq defending global peace and security; I did not try to comfort Karen by proclaiming Miles was in Iraq to enforce violated U.N. resolutions; no, I thanked Karen for her family's sacrifice, because Miles was in Iraq honoring his solemn pledge to God and to us to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies.''
Mr. Speaker, amidst an anguished era ennobled by our sacrifices in the unsought struggle against a bloodthirsty enemy, we ask our troops to do their best; we ask their families to do their best; and we ask our fellow citizens to do their best But we, in ``the people's house,'' have not done our best; and upon this resolution I will be voting ``present.''
I submit for the Record President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Ninth Annual Message to Congress, January 6, 1942.
In fulfilling my duty to report upon the state of the
Union, I am proud to say to you that the spirit of the
American people was never higher than it is today--the Union
was never more closely knit together--this country was never
more deeply determined to face the solemn tasks before it.
The response of the American people has been instantaneous,
and it will be sustained until our security is assured.
Exactly one year ago today I said to this Congress: ``When
the dictators . . . are ready to make war upon us, they will
not wait for an act of war on our part . . . They--not we--
will choose the time and the place and the method of their
attack.''
We now know their choice of the time: a peaceful Sunday
morning--December 7, 1941.
We know their choice of the place: an American outpost in
the Pacific.
We know their choice of the method: the method of Hitler
himself.
Japan's scheme of conquest goes back half a century. It was
not merely a policy of seeking living room--it was a plan
which included the subjugation of all the peoples in the Far
East and in the islands of the Pacific, and the domination of
that ocean by Japanese military and naval control of the
western coasts of North, Central, and South America.
The development of this ambitious conspiracy was marked by
the war against China in 1894; the subsequent occupation of
Korea; the war against Russia in 1904; the illegal
fortification of the mandated Pacific islands following 1920;
the seizure of Manchuria in 1931; and the invasion of China
in 1937.
A similar policy of criminal conquest was adopted by Italy.
The Fascists first revealed their imperial designs in Libya
and Tripoli. In 1935 they seized Abyssinia. Their goal was
the domination of all North Africa, Egypt, parts of France,
and the entire Mediterranean world.
But the dreams of empire of the Japanese and Fascist
leaders were modest in comparison with the gargantuan
aspirations of Hitler and his Nazis. Even before they came to
power in 1933, their plans for that conquest had been drawn.
Those plans provided for ultimate domination, not of anyone
section of the world, but of the whole earth and all the
oceans on it.
When Hitler organized his Berlin-Rome-Tokyo alliance, all
these plans of conquest became a single plan. Under this, in
addition to her own schemes of conquest, Japan's role was
obviously to cut off our supply of weapons of war to Britain
and Russia and China--weapons which increasingly were
speeding the day of Hitler's doom. The act of Japan at Pearl
Harbor was intended to stun us--to terrify us to such an
extent that we would divert our industrial and military
strength to the Pacific area, or even to our own continental
defense.
The plan has failed in its purpose. We have not been
stunned. We have not been terrified or confused. This very
reassembling of the Seventy-seventh Congress today is proof
of that; for the mood of quiet, grim resolution which here
prevails bodes ill for those who conspired and collaborated
to murder world peace.
That mood is stronger than any mere desire for revenge. It
expresses the will of the American people to make very
certain that the world will never so suffer again.
Admittedly, we have been faced with hard choices. It was
bitter, for example, not to be able to relieve the heroic and
historic defenders of Wake Island. It was bitter for us not
to be able to land a million men in a thousand ships in the
Philippine Islands.
But this adds only to our determination to see to it that
the Stars and Stripes will fly again over Wake and Guam. Yes,
see to it that the brave people of the Philippines will be
rid of Japanese imperialism, and will live in freedom,
security, and independence.
Powerful and offensive actions must and will be taken in
proper time. The consolidation of the United Nations' total
war effort against our common enemies is being achieved.
That was and is the purpose of conferences which have been
held during the past two weeks in Washington and Moscow and
Chungking. That is the primary objective of the declaration
of solidarity signed in Washington on January 1, 1942, by
twenty-six nations united against the Axis powers. . . .
Plans have been laid here and in the other capitals for
coordinated and cooperative action by all the United
Nations--military action and economic action. Already we have
established, as you know, unified command of land, sea, and
air forces in the southwestern Pacific theater of war. There
will be a continuation of conferences and consultations among
military staffs, so that the plans and operations of each
will fit into the general strategy designed to crush the
enemy. We shall not fight isolated wars--each nation going
its own way. These twenty-six nations are united--not in
spirit and determination alone, but in the broad conduct of
the war in all its phases.
For the first time since the Japanese and the Fascists and
the Nazis started along their blood-stained course of
conquest they now face the fact that superior forces are
assembling against them. Gone forever are the days when the
aggressors could attack and destroy their victims one by one
without unity of resistance. We of the United Nations will so
dispose our forces that we can strike at the common enemy
wherever the greatest damage can be done him.
The militarists of Berlin and Tokyo started this war. But
the massed, angered forces of common humanity will finish it.
Destruction of the material and spiritual centers of
civilization--this has been and still is the purpose of
Hitler and his Italian and Japanese chessmen. They would
wreck the power of the British Commonwealth and Russia and
China and the Netherlands--and then combine all their forces
to achieve their ultimate goal, the conquest of the United
States.
They know that victory for us means victory for freedom.
They know that victory for us means victory for the
institution of democracy--the ideal of the family, the simple
principles of common decency and humanity.
They know that victory for us means victory for religion.
And they could not tolerate that. The world is too small to
provide adequate ``living room'' for both Hitler and God. In
proof of that, the Nazis have now announced their plan for
enforcing their new German, pagan religion all over the
world--a plan by which the Holy Bible and the Cross of Mercy
would be displaced by Mein Kampf and the swastika and the
naked sword.
Our own objectives are clear; the objective of smashing the
militarism imposed by warlords upon their enslaved peoples--
the objective of liberating the subjugated nations--the
objective of establishing and securing freedom of speech,
freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear
everywhere in the world.
We shall not stop short of these objectives, nor shall we
be satisfied merely to gain them and then call it a day. I
know that I speak for the American people--and I have good
reason to believe that I speak also for all the other peoples
who fight with us--when I say that this time we are
determined not only to win the war, but also to maintain the
security of the peace that will follow. . . .
The superiority of the United Nations in munitions and
ships must be overwhelming--so overwhelming that the Axis
nations can never hope to catch up with it. And so, in order
to attain this overwhelming superiority the United States
must build planes and tanks and guns and ships to the utmost
limit of our national capacity. We have the ability and
capacity to produce arms not only for our own forces, but
also for the armies, navies, and air forces fighting on our
side.
And our overwhelming superiority of armament must
be adequate to put weapons of war at the proper time into
the hands of those men in the conquered nations who stand
ready to seize the first opportunity to
revolt against their German and Japanese oppressors, and
against the traitors in their own ranks, known by the
already infamous name of Quislings. And I think that it is
a fair prophecy to say that, as we get guns to the
patriots in those lands, they too will fire shots heard
'round the world.
This production of ours in the United States must be raised
far above present levels, even though it will mean the
dislocation of the lives and occupations of millions of our
own people. We must raise our sights all along the production
line. Let no man say it cannot be done. It must be done--and
we have undertaken to do it. . . .
Our task is hard--our task is unprecedented--and the time
is short. We must strain every existing armament-producing
facility to the utmost. We must convert every available plant
and tool to war production. That goes all the way from the
greatest plants to the smallest--from the huge automobile
industry to the village machine shop.
Production for war is based on men and women--the human
hands and brains which collectively we call Labor. Our
workers stand ready to work long hours; to turn out more in a
day's work; to keep the wheels turning and the fires burning
twenty-four hours a day, and seven days a week. They realize
well that on the speed and efficiency of their work depend
the lives of their sons and their brothers on the fighting
fronts.
Production for war is based on metals and raw materials--
steel, copper, rubber, aluminum, zinc, tin. Greater and
greater quantities of them will have to be diverted to war
purposes: Civilian use of them will have to be cut further
and still further--and, in many cases, completely eliminated.
War costs money. So far, we have hardly even begun to pay
for it. We have devoted only 15 percent of our national
income to national defense. As will appear in my Budget
Message tomorrow, our war program for the coming fiscal year
will cost $56 billion or, in other words, more than half of
the estimated annual national income. That means taxes and
bonds and bonds and taxes. It means cutting luxuries and
other nonessentials. In a word, it means an ``all-out'' war
by individual effort and family effort in a united country.
Only this all-out scale of production will hasten the
ultimate all-out victory. Speed will count. Lost ground can
always be regained--lost time never. Speed will save lives;
speed will save this nation which is in peril; speed will
save our freedom and our civilization--and slowness has never
been an American characteristic. . . .
We cannot wage this war in a defensive spirit. As our power
and our resources are fully mobilized, we shall carry the
attack against the enemy--we shall hit him and hit him again
wherever and whenever we can reach him.
We must keep him far from our shores, for we intend to
bring this battle to him on his own home grounds.
American armed forces must be used at any place in all the
world where it seems advisable to engage the forces of the
enemy. In some cases these operations will be defensive, in
order to protect key positions. In other cases, these
operations will be offensive, in order to strike at the
common enemy, with a view to his complete encirclement and
eventual total defeat.
American armed forces will operate at many points in the
Far East.
American armed forces will be on all the oceans--helping to
guard the essential communications which are vital to the
United Nations.
American land and air and sea forces will take stations in
the British Isles--which constitute an essential fortress in
this great world struggle.
American armed forces will help to protect this
hemisphere--and also help to protect bases outside this
hemisphere, which could be used for an attack on the
Americas.
If any of our enemies, from Europe or from Asia, attempt
long-range raids by ``suicide'' squadrons of bombing
planes, they will do so only in the hope of terrorizing
our people and disrupting our morale. Our people are not
afraid of that. We know that we may have to pay a heavy
price for freedom. We will pay this price with a will.
Whatever the price, it is a thousand times worth it. No
matter what our enemies, in their desperation, may attempt
to do to us--we will say, as the people of London have
said, ``We can take it.'' And what's more we can give it
back--and we will give it back--with compound interest. .
. .
Many people ask, ``When will this war end?'' There is only
one answer to that. It will end just as soon as we make it
end, by our combined efforts, our combined strength, our
combined determination to fight through and work through
until the end--the end of militarism in Germany and Italy and
Japan. Most certainly we shall not settle for less.
That is the spirit in which discussions have been conducted
during the visit of the British prime minister to Washington.
Mr. Churchill and I understand each other, our motives, and
our purposes. Together, during the past two weeks, we have
faced squarely the major military and economic problems of
this greatest world war.
All in our nation have been cheered by Mr. Churchill's
visit. We have been deeply stirred by his great message to
us. He is welcome in our midst, and we unite in wishing him a
safe return to his home.
For we are fighting on the same side with the British
people, who fought alone for long, terrible months, and
withstood the enemy with fortitude and tenacity and skill.
We are fighting on the same side with the Russian people
who have seen the Nazi hordes swarm up to the very gates of
Moscow, and who with almost superhuman will and courage have
forced the invaders back into retreat.
We are fighting on the same side as the brave people of
China--those millions who for four and a half long years have
withstood bombs and starvation and have whipped the invaders
time and again in spite of the superior Japanese equipment
and arms.
Yes, we are fighting on the same side as the indomitable
Dutch.
We are fighting on the same side as all the other
governments in exile, whom Hitler and all his armies and all
his Gestapo have not been able to conquer.
But we of the United Nations are not making all this
sacrifice of human effort and human lives to return to the
kind of world we had after the last world war.
We are fighting today for security, for progress, and for
peace, not only for ourselves but for all men, not only for
one generation but for all generations. Weare fighting to
cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancient ills.
Our enemies are guided by brutal cynicism, by unholy
contempt for the human race. Weare inspired by a faith that
goes back through all the years to the first chapter of the
book of Genesis: ``God created man in His own image.''
We on our side are striving to be true to that divine
heritage. We are fighting, as our fathers have fought, to
uphold the doctrine that all men are equal in the sight of
God. Those on the other side are striving to destroy this
deep belief and to create a world in their own image--a world
of tyranny and cruelty and serfdom.
That is the conflict that day and night now pervades our
lives. No compromise can end that conflict. There never has
been--there never can be--successful compromise between good
and evil. Only total victory can reward the champions of
tolerance, and decency, and freedom, and faith.