[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 34, Number 8 (Monday, February 23, 1998)]
[Pages 269-273]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia

February 17, 1998

    Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for your remarks and your 
leadership. Thank you, Secretary Cohen, for the superb job you have done 
here at the Pentagon and on this most recent, very difficult problem. 
Thank you, General Shelton, for being the right person at the right 
time. Thank you, General Ralston, and the members of the Joint Chiefs, 
General Zinni, Secretary Albright, Secretary Slater, DCI Tenet, Mr. 
Bowles, Mr. Berger. Senator Robb, thank you for being here, and 
Congressman Skelton, thank you very much, and for your years of service 
to America and your passionate patriotism, both of you, and to the 
members of our Armed Forces and others who work here to protect our 
national security.
    I have just received a very fine briefing from our military 
leadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf. Before I 
left the Pentagon I wanted to talk to you and all those whom you 
represent, the men and women of our military. You, your friends, and 
your colleagues are on the frontlines of this crisis in Iraq. I want you 
and I want the American people to hear directly from me what is at stake 
for America in the Persian Gulf; what we are doing to protect the peace, 
the security, the freedom we cherish; why we have taken the position we 
have taken.
    I was thinking, as I sat up here on the platform, of the slogan that 
the First Lady gave me for her project on the millennium, which was: 
Remembering the past and imagining the future. Now, for that project, 
that means preserving the Star-Spangled Banner and the Declaration of 
Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it means 
making an unprecedented commitment to medical research and to get the 
best of the new technology. But that's not a bad slogan for us when we 
deal with more sober, more difficult, more dangerous matters.
    Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would 
argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the 
past nor imagined the future. So, first, let's just take a step back and 
consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to 
our security in the new era we are entering.
    This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower 
confrontation has ended on every continent; democracy is securing for 
more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take 
for granted. Bit by bit, the information age is chipping away at the 
barriers, economic, political, and social, that once kept people locked 
in and freedom and prosperity locked out.
    But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room 
know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a 
result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of 
terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals. We 
have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They 
feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take 
advantage of the freer movement of people, information,

[[Page 270]]

and ideas. And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to 
build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the 
missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
    There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's 
Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of 
his region, and the security of all the rest of us.
    I want the American people to understand, first, the past: How did 
this crisis come about? And I want them to understand what we must do to 
protect the national interest and, indeed, the interest of all freedom-
loving people in the world.
    Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf war, the 
United Nations demanded--not the United States, the United Nations 
demanded--and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days--this is 
way back in 1991--within 15 days his nuclear, chemical, and biological 
weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. 
That's what he promised to do.
    The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained 
international experts, called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good 
on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. 
Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it, not once but 
many times. In a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons 
against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and 
even against his own people. And during the Gulf war, Saddam launched 
Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Bahrain.
    Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of 
the Gulf war, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying 
to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts. 
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had 
left in its possession after the Gulf war. When UNSCOM would then 
uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply 
amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations 4 
times within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different 
biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by 
UNSCOM.
    In 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer 
of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He 
revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and 
the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to 
developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapons 
stocks. Previously it had vehemently denied the very thing it just 
simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and 
told the truth.
    Now, listen to this. What did it admit? It admitted, among other 
things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 
gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 
25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might 
say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly 
understated its production. As if we needed further confirmation, you 
all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely 
decision to go back to Iraq.
    Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined 
and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, 
disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back 
doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, 
and our people were there observing it and have the pictures to prove 
it.
    Despite Iraq's deceptions UNSCOM has, nevertheless, done a 
remarkable job. Its inspectors, the eyes and ears of the civilized 
world, have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction 
capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf war. This includes nearly 
40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons 
agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for 
chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons 
facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly 
agents.
    Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to 
rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet 
another gambit to thwart their ambition by imposing debilitating 
conditions

[[Page 271]]

on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been 
inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more 
than 2,600 acres large. By comparison--when you hear all this business 
about ``Presidential sites reflect our sovereignty; why do you want to 
come into a residence?''--the White House complex is 18 acres, so you'll 
have some feel for this. One of these Presidential sites is about the 
size of Washington, DC. That's about--how many acres did you tell me it 
was--40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with 
delicate personal matters involved.
    It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole 
history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his 
capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver 
them, and the feedstocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM 
inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and 
biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the 
capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many 
more weapons.
    Now, against that background, let us remember the past, here. It is 
against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made 
clear our preference for a diplomatic solution. The inspection system 
works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, 
stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who 
have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout 
the world. It has worked.
    That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what 
has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf war, 
to do what should have been done within 15 days--within 15 days of the 
agreement at the end of the Gulf war--if we can find a diplomatic way to 
do that, that is by far our preference. But to be a genuine solution and 
not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic 
solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple 
standard: Iraq must agree, and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to 
these sites, anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or 
diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has 
put in place.
    Now, those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what 
he agreed to at the end of the Gulf war. The Security Council many times 
since has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not 
be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligation through 
more tactics of delay and deception, he, and he alone, will be to blame 
for the consequences.
    I ask all of you to remember the record here: what he promised to do 
within 15 days of the end of the Gulf war, what he repeatedly refused to 
do, what we found out in '95, what the inspectors have done against all 
odds.
    We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not 
include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who 
have integrity and proven competence in the inspection business. That 
should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I 
have been fighting for it so hard. That's why the United States should 
insist upon it.
    Now let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail 
to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more 
opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and 
continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to 
ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that 
the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude 
that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating 
destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the 
arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for 
any length of time believes that, too.
    Now, we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf 
and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would 
not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, of Kuwait, Bahrain, 
the GCC States, and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to 
provide forces, bases, or logistical support, including the United 
Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and The Netherlands, 
Hungary

[[Page 272]]

and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia, New 
Zealand, and our friends and neighbors in Canada. That list is growing, 
not because anyone wants military action but because there are people in 
this world who believe the United Nations resolution should mean 
something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because 
they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future 
will be, depending on what we do now.
    If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is 
clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons 
of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to 
threaten his neighbors. I am quite confident from the briefing I have 
just received from our military leaders that we can achieve the 
objectives and secure our vital strategic interests.
    Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons 
of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him 
significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to 
threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors. And he 
will know that the international community continues to have the will to 
act if and when he threatens again.
    Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities 
with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons 
of mass destruction we will be prepared to strike him again. The 
economic sanctions will remain in place until Saddam complies fully with 
all U.N. resolutions.
    Consider this: Already these sanctions have denied him $110 billion. 
Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be today, how many more 
weapons of mass destruction operations he would have hidden around the 
country if he had been able to spend even a small fraction of that 
amount for a military rebuilding.
    We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southern suburbs 
of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq, making it more 
difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again or threaten the Kurds in 
the north.
    Now, let me say to all of you here, as all of you know, the 
weightiest decision any President ever has to make is to send our troops 
into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes 
it's the only answer.
    You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained fighting 
force in the world. And should it prove necessary for me to exercise the 
option of force, your commanders will do everything they can to protect 
the safety of all the men and women under their command. No military 
action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon 
in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.
    Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We have 
seen that constant vigilance pays off, but it requires constant 
vigilance. Since the Gulf war we have pushed back every time Saddam has 
posed a threat. When Baghdad plotted to assassinate former President 
Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters. When Saddam 
threatened another invasion by massing his troops in Kuwait, along the 
Kuwaiti border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our ships, 
our planes, and Saddam backed down. When Saddam forcefully occupied 
Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our control over Iraq's skies by 
extending the no-fly zone.
    But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons 
inspections system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every 
conceivable way. But the discipline, determination, the year-in, year-
out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to 
finish the job.
    Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act. But Saddam Hussein 
could end this crisis tomorrow, simply by letting the weapons inspectors 
complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international 
community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a 
long time ago, now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that 
he makes good on his own promise.
    Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th 
century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this 
century we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to 
aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and, when 
necessary, action. In the next

[[Page 273]]

century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of 
threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, 
ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or 
organized criminals, who travel the world among us unnoticed.
    If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow 
in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they 
can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the 
United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass 
destruction program. But if we act as one, we can safeguard our 
interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and 
terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the 
will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era.
    That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I 
ask our allies to imagine. If we look at the past and imagine that 
future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a 
chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this and, if not, God willing, 
a chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 12:37 p.m. in the auditorium. In his 
remarks, he referred to President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.