Ten Years Ago President Clinton Signed the Iraq Liberation Act [Reader Post]

October 31, 1998 – On This Day In History Bill Clinton Released The Following Statement

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:

The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

While the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 made the removal of Saddam Hussein public policy, the United States by this time had already been secretly trying to remove Saddam for several years. A full year and a half before Clinton signed the Act into law, on May 8, 1997 Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post wrote:

The Central Intelligence Agency has spent six years and $110 million trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the most expensive sustained failure in agency history.

And that was just the cost of the CIA’s failed efforts to remove Saddam. In addition to those costs, there was considerable expense in containing him when you consider the large military presence needed to enforce the northern and southern no fly zones and the naval force needed to enforce sanctions and the oil-for-food program. And, of course, once every few years Bill Clinton would also launch a couple dozen or more cruise missiles into Iraq too.

In today’s liberal world view, United States foreign policy should be based on building “relations” as if feelings between government entities is something we should be greatly concerned about. It is almost impossible to believe now that while campaigning in 1992 Al Gore said United States foreign policy should be based on “American values” and support for “political freedom and economic freedom.” I wonder if Al Gore would be called a neoconservative if he said something similar today.

Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the Bush Doctrine before it was later redefined by Charlie Gibson, said:

To win the war against terrorism and, in so doing, help share a more peaceful world, we must speak to the hundreds of millions of moderate and tolerant people in the Muslim world, regardless of where they live, who aspire to enjoy the blessings of freedom and democracy and free enterprise. These are sometimes described as “Western values”, but, in fact, they are universal. We need to recognize that the terrorists target not only us but their fellow Muslims, upon whom they aim to impose a medieval, intolerant and tyrannical way of life. Those hundreds of millions of Muslims who aspire to the freedom and prosperity that Americans enjoy are, in many cases, on the frontlines of the struggle against terrorism.

And in reality that is a easy argument to make. Dictators have very different policy objectives than elected governments. Saddam Hussein funded terrorism to create an environment of fear and terror which he used to remain in power. Saddam had no interest in peace between Israel and its neighbors. External threats like Israel and the United States (Gulf War, economic sanctions, and cruise missile attacks) could be used as tools to create national unity and support for the government while also distracting from the hardships of daily life under a totalitarian regime.

It is difficult to imagine that a freely elected government in Iraq would have paid $25,000 bonuses to the families of suicide bombers. It is difficult to imagine that a freely elected government would have provided safe haven to terrorists like Abu Abbas, Abu Ibrahim, Abu Nidal, and World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin.

President George W. Bush described his foreign policy best during his second inaugural address:

There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant. And that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights, and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and Earth.

Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

The United States was founded by men and women seeking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our foreign policy should be conducted with these same inalienable rights in mind. How much can be achieved and the methods used is open for debate. But, if your foreign policy is based primarily on building relations with other countries, your foreign policy is little more than hoping to obtain political recognition and photo opportunities.

So, why did President Bill Clinton and congress feel the need to pass the Iraq Liberation Act way back in 1998? Perhaps Senator Joe Biden said it best:

Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century.