SOMALIA (Senate - October 07, 1993)
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first of all, I want to concur in the sentiments expressed by my good friend, the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], as it relates to the United Nations literally taking command of our troops and our forces. I think that raises very serious questions--questions that we should be discussing as to when, how, and under what circumstances. Basically, I say they should not have command and control over U.S. forces.
Second, the fact that we have changed the mission in Mogadishu, in Somalia, where we once undertook a mission of mercy, for feeding starving people--and everyone could sympathize and support that effort; I did, and I think most of the American people did, as did Congress--we have gone from that humanitarian mission, where we put in 28,000 troops to guarantee the safety of the U.N. personnel undertaking that mission. Thereafter, we draw down that 28,000 to some 4,000 U.S. troops--most of them support, 1,200 Rangers. The fact of the matter is that by that draw down, and then a change of the mission from one which was of humanitarian nature but yet had sufficient fire power to assure that those charged with the responsibility of carrying this out could be protected, to one that we call--it is a wonderful sounding name--`nation building.' That sounds like a political process: `nation building.'
Mr. President, it is not a political process. It is not a political process if you have to use armed personnel and U.S. troops to go in and seek out people. It is not a political process if you are having fire fights with different segments, whether it is Aideed or anyone else. It is not a political process in the terms that we generally think about it. It is a much more aggressive one. It is a policy that departs from sending food in. A policy of seeking out and hunting down people who are armed and dangerous. By its very nature, it is much more dangerous.
What do we do? We withdraw support for the young men and women who we send over there in basically a humanitarian effort. And now, under the aegis of the United Nations, it has been changed, and it is much more a military action. That is what it is. Nation building is a military action.
Senator Brown and I sent a letter to Secretary Aspin yesterday in which we requested from him confirmation or denial of those reports that we have read in a number of the media, in which it has been said that Secretary Aspin denied the request of General Montgomery to send armored personnel support tanks to Somalia for defensive purposes.
Let me read to you a report from Knight-Ridder, in the Albany Times Union:
`Defense Secretary Les Aspin twice spurned requests from General Colin Powell to send additional tanks and troops to Somalia to defend American soldiers--before a dozen died in last week's fire fight,' Pentagon officials said Wednesday. Officially, Aspin and the Pentagon decline to discuss the episode, saying that such matters are classified. Privately, Aspin aides acknowledged that the Secretary never acted on the request, made twice over a 3-week period. `The Defense Secretary was mulling this request when the mission blew up over the weekend,' one said.
In addition, it has been reported that the civilian advisers to Secretary Aspin said they feared there might be a political backlash from the Congress and the American people.
Since when has Congress ever, ever engaged in that kind of second-guessing of what was necessary for the defense of our young men and women? How dare those political bureaucrats make that assumption? And how dare the Secretary of Defense turn down that kind of request? Incredible.
Indeed, we have a right to these answers. Why did Secretary Aspin turn down a request that came from the field and that was approved by none other than Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to see that the kind of support necessary, that the tanks and equipment necessary to defend our young men were not made available?
If it is true that he feared a political backlash, does that mean that because of the sake of political expedience we do not give proper support to our young men and women in the field? Is that what that means? That is a pretty sad commentary.
Let me indicate to you why this takes on some relevance because the fact of the matter is these young rangers were pinned down for up to 9 hours, although American personnel quick reaction forces that were supposed to be able to respond in 20 minutes, it took them 9 hours to get to these rangers who were pinned down because they did not have what? Tanks in which to get them there. And after they started a rescue operation and hit withering fire, their commander on the ground determined that the losses would be too great and withdrew and, thereupon, it took another period of time before we could assemble tanks from other areas from the Malaysians who then broke through and were finally able to rescue these rangers who were pinned down for 9 hours.
Mr. President, maybe it is not the political thing to say or to do in this climate of political correctness, but Secretary Aspin has a lot to be called for and a great deal of accountability on why it is he turned down these tanks. And if the answer is that which we have heard from the nameless, faceless bureaucrats, because he feared a political backlash, then I suggest that he should be fired now. He should resign now, and if he does not resign, the President should remove him.
We understand the principle of civilian control and that the President is Commander in Chief of the military. But we also recognize that when we send our people out into the field, our young men and women, our soldiers, to take on hazardous and dangerous missions that we give them the best, that we support them, that we do not withhold support with something so basic as tanks to defend them in a situation that has changed from one that was supposed to be humanitarian to now a more militaristic adventure. And that is what it is. That is unconscionable to deny that field commander, who is backed up by no less than Colin Powell, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to deny them that which they need to protect themselves.
I do not know how many lives may have been saved if those tanks were available. I do not know how many of those who were wounded may not have been wounded. I do not know whether or not that mission would have been conducted in that manner, dropping them in that manner, because they did not have tanks and could not approach. I do not know.
But I certainly would suggest to you that the conduct of this operation not only leaves a lot to be desired, but it would appear that we do things on the altar of political expedience, and that is not acceptable. It is not acceptable.
Mr. President, I want to suggest to you that we are getting ourselves further into a situation where we are losing control over the command of our own U.S. personnel. I believe that what we see in Somalia may be the harbinger of things to come that may bring greater consequences and devastation to this country.
We use these nice new terms `nation building.' Well, if nation building means that we have to conduct strikes against various people and tribes, I would suggest to you that that is far more hostile than what it may sound like, that it is far more dangerous than the so-called humanitarian mission of bringing food to people.
I suggest to you that it is a military operation. We now use another term. Maybe it is to get around the War Powers Act. It is called peacekeeping, and we now talk about bringing in,
injecting 25,000 so-called peacekeepers into Bosnia.
Let me tell you something. Sending 25,000 so-called peacekeepers into Bosnia is far more dangerous than having 4,000 troops in Somalia under the present situation. If you believe that 25,000 peacekeepers are going to keep the peace, then I tell you, you believe in the tooth fairy, because they are not going to keep the peace and they are going to wind up being targets themselves. And just like some of our United States servicemen have reported, we do not know who the enemy is in Mogadishu and Somalia. They are not going to know who the enemy is because one day it is one group and another day it is going to be the next group.
We are taking on the mission of being world policeman. We are saying that under the aegis of the United Nations we are going to enter wherever there is civil strife. If they say it is a U.N. operation, it is going to be United Nations in name alone, and the fact of the matter is the firepower, the men who bear the suffering, the combat forces are going to be primarily United States.
Have we become hired mercenaries to inject in every hot spot throughout the world?
These are the kinds of questions we better be answering ourselves. Are we going to have the incompetent bureaucrats at the United Nations determining the destiny of our U.S. service people? Are we going to have the command and control on battlefield situations, the lives of young U.S. citizens, who serve their country, determined by foreign nationals who may decide to send in help or may not decide to send in help? Who may decide it is appropriate?
We get reports that in certain situations when military operations were being conducted--and I say military operations in Somalia--that certain of the countries that participated, their commanders did not agree with the overall command and refused to undertake various operations.
How do you assure the safety of our U.S. troops in that kind of situation?
I suggest to you that we better have a clear understanding of this business. It is nice to bring in this business of one world--one world, former President Bush discussed that--and the use of the United Nations. When do you decide it is appropriate to use force? At what level, and who is going to participate? Who is going to fund this?
Mr. President, I know there are others who would like to speak to the issue at hand, the Dellinger nomination. I thank them for their indulgence to permit me the opportunity to raise these issues.
These are difficult times, but I think sometimes we are afraid to call them the way we see them because maybe it is not politically correct. There are other issues. There are those who say let us get Aideed.
I think the only thing necessary for us to do is to make sure that we secure those who have been taken hostage and get out as quickly as possible. I think this Nation is far greater than having to worry about how we are going to be viewed in other areas of the world. I do not think it is worth, that conflict in that area, one more U.S. life. Yesterday we had another person who was killed as they mortared the fields over there.
I do not like when I hear situations where the other conveys and the other troops of the nations are not fired upon, but it has now become sport to fire upon the U.S. personnel. I
understand there will be deaths there. Pakistan suffered deaths. But now it is very clear we have become the enemy where here we are reaching out to give humanitarian aid to help starving people and are now viewed as the enemy. Here we went in with one purpose, and now we are being asked to hunt down whoever it is. I would like to hang him, no doubt about that.
Is it worth more and more human lives, more and more servicemen, one more man to go and get him. If we are going to get him, then for God's sake, let us authorize this and let us do it in an appropriate way. Let us see to it we have overwhelming power and force so that we do not unnecessarily jeopardize lives and do it in that manner as opposed to this haphazard manner calling it one thing and yet it is something else--putting a nice, acceptable political terminology on as nation building when it involves far more in the way of military risk than our previous authorized undertaking of supplying humanitarian relief.
I think we better be more realistic, and I also think we need real accountability.
Notwithstanding that, it may not sound nice, Secretary Aspin should go. He absolutely has forfeited his right to have the support of this Congress, of the people of this Nation, when he refused to send the necessary armament so that young men could be defended from the kind of thing that took place.
Mr. President, I see my colleague from Alabama, and I yield the floor.
[Page: S13200]
