ANOTHER RUSTY HUMPHRIES LIE

UPDATE: I was wrong and Mr. Humphries let me know by e-mail. There was an op-ed by Hagel & Biden in 2002. For some reason, the searches I used on Lexis-Nexis didn't turn it up.

Here's the op-ed:

The Washington Post
December 20, 2002 Friday Final Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A43
LENGTH: 908 words
HEADLINE: Iraq: The Decade After
BYLINE: Joseph R. Biden and Chuck Hagel

The United States will face enormous challenges in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, as well as broad regional questions that must be addressed. These are both matters that members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have been focusing on for some time. During a week-long trip to the region, we came away with a better understanding of the possibilities and perils that lie ahead. In northern Iraq we saw the extraordinary potential of Iraqis once they are out from under Saddam Hussein's murderous hand. New hospitals, schools, roads and lively media are testimony to the determination of Iraqi Kurds and to the bravery of coalition air crews patrolling the no-fly zone. Just a few hours' drive from the oppressive rule in Baghdad, a freely elected regional government and legislature (which we were honored to address) are embarked on a path of clear-eyed realism. While neighboring countries fear an independent Kurdistan, Kurdish leaders appear committed to working together for a united Iraq. They realize they could lose everything they have built in the past decade by pursuing independence. Although no one doubts our forces will prevail over Saddam Hussein's, key regional leaders confirm what the Foreign Relations Committee emphasized in its Iraq hearings last summer: The most challenging phase will likely be the day after -- or, more accurately, the decade after -- Saddam Hussein. Once he is gone, expectations are high that coalition forces will remain in large numbers to stabilize Iraq and support a civilian administration. That presence will be necessary for several years, given the vacuum there, which a divided Iraqi opposition will have trouble filling and which some new Iraqi military strongman must not fill. Various experts have testified that as many as 75,000 troops may be necessary, at a cost of up to $ 20 billion a year. That does not include the cost of the war itself, or the effort to rebuild Iraq. Americans are largely unprepared for such an undertaking. President Bush must make clear to the American people the scale of the commitment. The northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk is an example of the perils American forces may encounter. It sits atop valuable oil fields and is home to a mixed population of Arabs, Turkmen and Kurds. In recent years, Saddam Hussein has expelled Turkmen and Kurds as part of an "Arabization," or ethnic cleansing, campaign. We toured a refugee camp housing 120,000 displaced people and heard countless stories of brutality and the loss of loved ones. Kirkuk could become the Iraqi version of Mitrovica, the volatile city in Kosovo where the U.N.-led administration has faced the dilemma of forcibly resettling people from various ethnic communities who have been evicted from their homes. This is one reason why we will need our allies to help rebuild Iraq. Cementing a broad coalition today will keep the pressure on Hussein to disarm, build legitimacy for the use of force if he refuses, reduce the risks to our troops and spread the burden of securing and reconstructing Iraq. Going it alone and imposing a U.S.-led military government instead of a multinational civilian administration could turn us from liberators into occupiers, fueling resentment throughout the Arab world. Iraq cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Disarming and stabilizing that country will be all the more difficult because of the unsettled regional environment, in particular the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While it is essential that the United States aggressively pursue Israeli-Palestinian peace on its own merits, doing so has ancillary benefits for the disarmament of Iraq. Simply put, we will make it easier for Arab governments to participate in, or at least support, our actions in Iraq if they can show their people we are engaged in the peace process. Meetings with Israeli officials and Palestinian reformers led us to believe new opportunities exist for American diplomacy. Recent polling shows that nearly three-quarters of Israelis and Palestinians seek reconciliation and a two-state solution. For the first time since the violence began, a majority of Palestinians support a crackdown against terrorism as part of a peace process. A large majority have no confidence in Yasser Arafat. The key is to empower Palestinian reformers and encourage Arab moderates. President Bush should lose no time in publicly endorsing the "road map" developed by the Quartet -- an informal group of mediators on the Middle East from the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. The road map provides for a series of reciprocal steps to jump-start a renewed peace process. That would give hope to Palestinian reformers and send a clear message to the Arab world that the United States remains determined to pursue an Israeli-Palestinian settlement even as we deal with Iraq. Working on multiple fronts poses a difficult test for American leadership, but there is no escaping the fact that we face several related, interlocking crises in the region. As the bulwark of freedom and democracy, the United States faces the need to disarm Saddam Hussein and set the stage for a stable Iraq, win a protracted war on terrorism and engage fully on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Working with our friends and allies, it is a challenge we can, and must, meet.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) is chairman and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

################################

Rusty claimed that Senators Biden & Hagel wrote in a 2002 op-ed that the Iraq War could take 10 years. One problem: there is no such op-ed. Biden & LUGAR did write one in July 31, 2002, that appeared in the NY Times but that didn't mention 10 years either.

(from Lexis-Nexis)

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
July 31, 2002 Wednesday Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 19
LENGTH: 686 words
HEADLINE: Debating Iraq
BYLINE: By Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Richard G. Lugar; Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the chairman and Richard Lugar the acting ranking Republic member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:Through tragedy and pain, Americans have learned a great deal this past year about why foreign policy matters. In recent months, President Bush has made clear his determination to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power -- a goal many of us in Congress share. But to date we've seen only leaked reports of competing military plans. These have reflected deep divisions within the administration about whether and how to proceed. The time has come for a serious discussion of American policy toward Iraq.The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will begin in-depth hearings today. While the White House supports the hearings -- which have been coordinated closely by Democrats and Republicans on the committee -- administration officials will not participate at this time lest the president be put in the position of having to make critical decisions prematurely. Without prejudging any particular course of action -- including the possibility of staying with nonmilitary options -- we hope to start a national discussion of some critical questions.First, what threat does Iraq pose to our security? How immediate is the danger? President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. It's true that other regimes hostile to the United States and our allies have, or seek to acquire, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. What makes Mr. Hussein unique is that he has actually used them -- against his own people and against his Iranian neighbors. And for nearly four years, Iraq has blocked the return of United Nations weapons inspectors. We need to explore Mr. Hussein's track record in acquiring, making and using weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood he would share them with terrorists. We also need a clear assessment of his current capabilities, including conventional forces and weapons. Second, what are the possible responses to the Iraqi threat? The containment strategy pursued by the United States since the end of the Persian Gulf war has kept Mr. Hussein boxed in. Continuing the containment strategy, coupled with a tough weapons-inspection program, is one option. But it raises the risk that Mr. Hussein will play cat-and-mouse with inspectors while building more weapons and selling them to those who would use them against us. If we wait for the danger to become clear and present, it may be too late. That is why some believe removing Mr. Hussein from power is the better course.A military response poses other problems. Some argue that by attacking Mr. Hussein, we might precipitate the very thing we are trying to prevent: his use of weapons of mass destruction. There also is concern he might try to spark a regional war. We must determine whether resources can be shifted to a major military undertaking in Iraq without compromising the war on terror elsewhere. We have to ask how much military intervention would cost and consider its likely impact on our economy. And we need to determine what level of support we are likely to get from allies in the Middle East and Europe.Third, when Saddam Hussein is gone, what would be our responsibilities? This question has not been explored but may prove to be the most critical. In Afghanistan, the war was prosecuted successfully, but many of us believe our commitment to security and reconstruction there has fallen short. Given Iraq's strategic location, its large oil reserves and the suffering of the Iraqi people, we cannot afford to replace a despot with chaos.We need to assess what it would take to rebuild Iraq economically and politically. Addressing these questions now would demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we are committed for the long haul. Iraq's neighbors would breathe easier if they knew the future had been thought through in detail. The American people, whose sons and daughters may be put in harm's way, need to have that same sense of assurance. Simply put, we need to know everything possible about the risks of action and of inaction. Ignoring these factors could lead us into something for which the American public is wholly unprepared. URL: http://www.nytimes.com LOAD-DATE: July 31, 2002