Appendix 1 to the hearing of
the House International Relations Committee

February 25, 1998

PREPARED STATEMENT OF

DANA ROHRABACHER,
A Representative from California

House International Relations Committee

February 25 , 1998

Mr. Chairman:

In avoiding a military strike on Iraq, the United States dodged a bullet. There was no chance that we would have suffered a military defeat at the hands of Saddam Hussein. However, a devastating air war without clearly defined objectives could have caused America to suffer needless long term political damage in the region and drastically diminished our capability to influence future events and deter aggression throughout the world.

Before the next inevitable crisis with Saddam, we should reexamine our basic policy options toward Iraq, to develop an effective alternative that will serve the national interest of the United States, assure the defense of Kuwait and enhance the stability of our allies throughout the region. We cannot permit Saddam to outmaneuver U.S. policy again. If the Iraqi people continue to suffer under his tyranny and he again begins stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, his prestige increases while our ability to shape events diminishes. I predict, every six months we will face another standoff, frustrating our people and allies, as well as lowering our readiness in other key strategic areas of the world at the cost of billions of tax dollars from an already strained defense budget.

Even if U.N. inspectors are allowed to resume full inspections, that will not resolve the weapons of mass destruction problem. Such weapons are very mobile and can be hidden in exceptionally small spaces. A more feasible goal is to remove the dictator who is stockpiling these weapons. A superior alternative to the Administration's bombing plans against Saddam would be a long term strategy similar to the one developed by Ronald Reagan to win the Cold War. President Reagan chose to emphasize what America was for, rather than dwell on what we were against. Especially in Latin America, where we left friendly dictators behind The communists, then, were defeated through our strong support of democracy, and by providing those willing to fight for their rights the means to win their freedom.

Rather than further impose a stranglehold on the Iraqi people, which causes Saddam to feel no pain, while increasingly generating hostility towards America, we should consider the recommendation proposed by respected American defense and foreign policy experts to offer the Iraqi people a choice. The United States is capable of recognizing and fully supporting an Iraqi democratic movement, consisting of broadbased elements of Iraqi society - whether in exile or in a zone on Iraq soil protected by U.S. firepower. A prerequisite for such an alternative government must be their commitment to free and fair elections and respect for the human rights of all Iraqi people.

The Administration, with Congressional approval, must develop a policy for Iraq other than a punitive military strike. We should learn a primary lesson from the Vietnam War that the incremental use of military force cannot achieve a decisive victory. We must remember, first and foremost, that any current military action cannot be a replay of Operation Desert Storm. We must also realize that we can never resolve the weapons of mass destruction issue as long as Saddam remains in power. Our actions must be strategically sound and decisive, with the ultimate goal not to punish the Iraqi people, but to free them - and the region - from the lethal tyranny of Saddam Hussein.