It is a pleasure and honor to join you this afternoon at the National Press Club. I have enjoyed listening to the broadcasts of this luncheon series for years on Maine Public Radio—I have been known to schedule my drive time so that I will have a chance to listen to the broadcast uninterrupted. I appreciate being asked to be on this side of the microphone.

I am speaking today in my capacity of National Director of Win Without War, a coalition of 40 national membership-based organizations including the NAACP, the National Council of Churches, the Sierra Club, the National Organization of Women, Veterans for Common Sense, to name but a few. While these organizations have diverse memberships and missions, we were united late last fall by a sense of great urgency to do everything possible to stop our government from launching a war that we were convinced was unnecessary, illegal and that would leave our nation and our world less secure. Despite the remarkable and unprecedented expression of public opposition in this country and around the world, nothing, it turns out, was going to deter the Bush administration from invading and occupying Iraq.

A vital citizens movement capable of exposing the dangers of the administration’s drive toward a world military empire is needed now more than ever. The mission of the Win Without War coalition is to defeat this administration’s policy of unilateral, preemptive war and its rejection of international cooperation, international law and the institutions that make the international rule of law possible. In short, we need to everything within our power to bury the Bush doctrine in Iraq. A small group within the administration has staged a silent coup and is reshaping America’s role in the world in radical ways that will severely threaten US and global security. And the sad truth is that Congress has largely abdicated its critical role as a check on executive power and a guardian of the public welfare in matters of war and peace.

One of the first responsibilities of our coalition—and, I must say, the media—must be to provide the American people with the information and analysis necessary to give them a complete and honest picture of what is happening in Iraq and its implications for our country and the world. Despite the much-touted successes of the military invasion, the costs and risks of this war remain enormous, and there is no reason to believe the US is any more secure now than it was before.

Don’t get me wrong—who among us is not relieved at the downfall of a brutal tyrant and the end of his stranglehold on a nation of millions? It goes without saying that the Iraqi people, and the world, are better off without Saddam Hussein. Not surprisingly, many Iraqis are overjoyed at the prospect of an end to decades of oppression, 12 years of sanctions and weeks of heavy bombardment.

Of course, the outcome of the military invasion of Iraq was never in doubt. As we said repeatedly in the weeks leading to the invasion, it is easy to predict the outcome of a military confrontation between the most powerful military in the history of the world and a weak and impoverished nation with a defense budget less than one percent of our own.

But it would be a mistake to confuse the current mood in Iraq with enthusiasm for the foreign occupation now being imposed, or to ignore the abundant indications that Iraq is descending into a pit of lawlessness, sectarian fighting, and on-going humanitarian crises. Just as it would be a mistake to conclude that the apparent ease with which the US and Britain blasted its way through Iraq strengthened the case for this unnecessary war or obviated its disastrous implications for US and world security.

Most worrisome of all is that the hawks in the Bush Administration will now proceed to the next phase of their program, and think that it can turn its guns on Iran, or Syria or N. Korea. The US war against Iraq is in many ways a trial run to establish what this administration calls a “new norm” in international relations. This new norm is the doctrine of preventive war that the Administration announced explicitly in its National Security Strategy last fall and which it has expounded on since. It holds that the US has the right to attack any country that it claims to be a potential threat—not an actual threat, nor an imminent threatbut a potential threat. The new strategy stresses offensive military intervention, preemptive first strikes, and proactive counter proliferation measures against so-called rogue states and other enemies. By rejecting the notion of working within international law, as well as the policies of deterrence and collective security, the Bush Administration is pursuing a vision in which the U.S. is not only the world’s policeman, but also the world’s military dictator, answerable only to itself.

Americans have the right to know the answer to the question—Does the invasion of Iraq and this “new norm” of the Bush national security strategy, make America safer?

Let’s start with the lessons that other nations, including those we call the “axis of evil”, will take from the trial run of the “new norm” in international relations—the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The administration believes that it will serve as a cautionary tale—one false move and you will suffer the fate of the Iraqi leadership. Well, the fact is that it is just as likely, if not more likely, that it could have precisely the opposite affect. So called rogue states could very likely conclude that they had better develop nuclear weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction immediately, or they’ll be vulnerable to a United States preventive war.

This is what the North Korea’s foreign ministry had to say last week: “To allow disarmament through inspections does not help avert a war, but rather sparks it.” The statement concludes, with unerring logic, that “only a tremendous military deterrent force” can prevent attacks on states the US dislikes. Meanwhile, the Iranian nuclear program continues to speed ahead. Does this make America and the world safer?

And what if the doctrine of pre-emption—that holds that one nation can attack another if it believes that the other nation poses a potential threat to it’s security—is embraced by bitter enemies with their fingers on the trigger of nuclear weapons, like India and Pakistan. What if it is embraced by North Korea? Does this make America and the world safer?

The fact is that the administration will find that N. Korea with its massive arsenal pointed at Seoul is not such easy prey for US military might. And it will find that Iran’s nuclear program cannot be stopped by attacking its facilities—many of which we can’t even locate—and that there is no chance that Iranians would welcome US troops as liberators.

The Bush doctrine rests on two unrealistic and simplistic notions: that the world will welcome US domination because they say to themselves “they’re the good guys” and that the American public will accept the costs and risks of an American military empire and US as world cop. The cost part of this equation is particularly relevant to be asking on the 15th of April.

Before the invasion of Iraq the administration was reluctant to discuss what the invasion would lead to—a full-scale occupation for an indeterminate amount of time at an indeterminate cost. Nor was it willing to talk about the fact that, unlike the first Gulf War—that was sanctioned by the UN Security Council and where 90% of its costs were paid by our allies—the American people will have to shoulder the full burden of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The administration has now proposed that Congress pay for the $75 billion down payment for this adventure by tacking it onto a federal deficit already heading to the $400 billion dollar mark while cutting vitally important investments here at home.

Fed on a steady diet of pictures of cheering Iraqi crowds and young American soldiers riding high in tanks and Humvees, Americans savor the taste of victory and feel genuine relief that many nightmare scenarios were avoided. But these pictures show only a part of the story and cannot change the reality that this war was avoidable and leaves the US, and the world, less secure than before.

President Bush took our nation to war on the basis of two specious arguments: One claim was that this war was necessary to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. The President and his administration told the American people repeatedly about Iraq’s vast weapons programs, with thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons that could kill millions of people. US and British forces now occupy the entire country. They have so far failed to turn up any evidence of any chemical or biological weapons, let alone massive programs. The Iraqi regimes’ failure to use any such weapons, even at the point of its own destruction, argues that either they do not have any usable biological or chemical weapons or they concluded their use would be ineffective. Whatever the reality, it demonstrates that a tough inspection regime given time and resources could have adequately addressed the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons programs.

The second claim was that the US was combating terrorism by overthrowing Saddam Hussein and occupying the country. Iraq and 9/11 were repeatedly spoken of in virtually the same breath by the President and his administration. American soldiers reportedly inscribed the names of 9/11 victims on the missiles and bombs they launched against hapless Iraqi conscripts, buildings, homes, and marketplaces.

I would like to read you a quote from a mother of Capt. Tristan Aitken, a US soldier who lost his life eleven days ago in Iraq: “He was doing his job. He had no choice, and I’m proud of who he was. But it makes me mad that this whole war was sold to the American public and to the soldiers as something it wasn’t. Our forces have been convinced that Iraqis were responsible for September 11, and that’s not true.”

She’s right. But, it is important to ask—Why, according to opinion polls, more than 50% of the American public believes something that is, in fact, untrue—that Iraq was to blame for the World Trade Center attacks on September 11 2001? No one else in the world believes this. Only Americans.

Given the administration’s “new norm” of military intervention and preemptive first strikes, this question becomes critical—the most important decision that a government can make—the life and death decision of war and peace—cannot be allowed to be based on a fiction.

Perhaps some found comfort or satisfaction in the belief that the US was responding to the evil of 9/11. But we should not be deluded into thinking that we have struck a blow against terrorism. The connection between the Iraqi regime and current terrorist activity was tenuous at best. It is well documented that the plan for “regime change” in Iraq pre-dated 9/11. The attacks that day provided a political opening to push the Bush administration’s new strategy.

The fact of the matter is genuine progress against the international terrorism has been made possible not by the Bush Doctrine, but by international cooperation and coordination. The proof can be found in the successful campaign to track down and capture key al Qaeda operatives. Indeed, European governments, Pakistan and others are responsible for the most significant achievements in apprehending suspected terrorists and disrupting their plans. The fact is that the battle against terrorism cannot be waged effectively without intelligence from our countries, international law enforcement operations, and worldwide coordination to shut down financial support that flows to the terrorists. Alienating the international community and building resentment with a go-it-alone foreign policy threatens what we know works to rein in terrorism and keep Americans and the world, safer.

While Arabs do not mourn Saddam’s passing, they do not welcome occupation of a sovereign Islamic state by a western military power. As expected, the war has caused an upsurge in anti-American sentiment in the Middle East—and around the world. Al Qaeda was created and became empowered by the US presence in Saudi Arabia following the first Gulf War. What new networks will be spawned in reaction to the US presence in Iraq? What can we expect from the tens of thousands of Iraqi children whose parents or siblings were killed by their so-called liberators? Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, a friend of the US, predicted last week that this war will produce “a hundred [Osama] bin Ladens.”

The Administration has brought about regime change as promised. But the world will be watching to judge their performance in fulfilling its far more demanding promises: promises to rebuild the cities we’ve just destroyed, restore order in the chaos of the vacuum we created, meet the pressing, overwhelming, humanitarian needs, and promote democracy, not just in Iraq, but in the region. It is obvious to us that a lead role for the UN and outside relief agencies in reconstruction is required if this effort is to be seen as legitimate. Just as it is obvious that the President’s words will ring hollow if the US anoints Iraq’s next leaders, or continues unabated its support for autocratic regimes throughout the Middle East, or most significantly, does not promptly make genuine and sustained efforts to promote a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Recent developments are not encouraging. The decision to run Iraq out of the Pentagon, complete with the handing out of no-bid contracts to politically connected firms like Halliburton, undermines US claims that we are nation builders, not occupiers. The fact that many humanitarian organizations will not operate under US military command will delay getting desperately needed humanitarian aid to the suffering people of Iraq. And how will any Iraqi government—even an interim one—be able to gain the authority and legitimacy that it will need, if it is brought to power by being anointed exclusively by the United States?

One the tasks of the anti-war movement is to keep the spotlight on the US’s obligations as an occupying power. Its track record is not promising. A year and a half after the cheering in Kabul has died down, rival warlords are back ruling most of Afghanistan with widespread torture, Taliban-style repression, and rampant lawlessness.

Those of us who opposed the war on Iraq have a tough and critical job to do. With a Congress that has abdicated its responsibility to provide checks and balances to the administration, and the UN having been cast aside, Win Without War and the citizens’ movement of this country is more important than ever. And so is the press. Unless the media is able and willing to challenge the administration’s spin and manipulation of facts, Americans may find themselves at war again. We are talking about future wars that are avoidable, that fuel terrorism, that isolate us from historic allies—whose cooperation we need to fight terrorism effectively—that undermine the rule of law, that heap enormous costs of the American people alone, that serve as partial justification for the suspension of civil liberties, and that make all Americans less secure.

Martin Luther King once said, “I do not believe our nation can be a moral leader of justice, equality, and democracy if it is trapped in the role of a self-appointed world policeman.” We are committed to doing everything in our power to help our country avoid that trap.

Thank you.

Tom Andrews, a former Democratic Congressman from Maine, is the National Director of Win Without War.

###