    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          ASSAD'S ABHORRENT CHEMICAL
                                WEAPONS ATTACKS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 17, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-57

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
                                      or
                           http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
                                     ______

                            U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    95-127PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2015
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    MATT SALMON, Arizona                 KAREN BASS, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   AMI BERA, California
    PAUL COOK, California                ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas            GRACE MENG, New York
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    CURT CLAWSON, Florida                BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
    DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
    DANIEL DONOVAN, New York

         Amy Porter, Chief of Staff      Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director

                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Robert Ford, senior fellow, The Middle East
      Institute......................................................     4
    Mohamed Tennari, M.D., Idlib coordinator, Syrian-American Medical

      Society........................................................    10
    Mr. Farouq Habib, Syria program manager, Mayday Rescue...........    21
    Annie Sparrow, M.B.B.S., deputy director human rights program,
      Assistant Professor of Global Health, Icahn School of Medicine
      at Mount Sinai.................................................    28

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    The Honorable Robert Ford: Prepared statement....................     6
    Mohamed Tennari, M.D.: Prepared statement........................    12
    Mr. Farouq Habib: Prepared statement.............................    23
    Annie Sparrow, M.B.B.S.: Prepared statement......................    30

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    60
    Hearing minutes..................................................    61
    Mohamed Tennari, M.D.: Material submitted for the record.........    63
    Mr. Farouq Habib: Material submitted for the record..............    68
    Annie Sparrow, M.B.B.S.: Material submitted for the record.......    73
    The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
      from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement..........    84

                          ASSAD'S ABHORRENT CHEMICAL
                                WEAPONS ATTACKS

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2015

                           House of Representatives,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.,
    in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Royce. This hearing will come to order. This
    morning we consider the continued use of Bashar al-Assad's
    chemical weapons strategy, his use of those chemical weapons on
    his own people.
        Two years ago, the world was stunned when Assad used sarin
    in the suburbs of Damascus--in that attack on that day 1,500
    people were killed. In response, President Obama threatened
    military action, and the Assad regime agreed to a hastily
    brokered deal to remove and destroy what was to be ``all'' of
    Syria's substantial stockpile. A year later, President Obama
    declared success. In February, Secretary Kerry testified that
    ``we got . . . all the chemical weapons out of Syria.''
        Well, that would be news to two of our witnesses here today
    because they've been on the front lines struggling to save the
    lives of those targeted by the regime's barrel bombs that are
    filled with weaponized chlorine. Dr. Tennari serves in the
    field hospital in Idlib Province and Mr. Farouq Habib works
    with the Syrian Civilian Defense--a group of volunteer first
    responders who dig through the rubble to treat victims.
        As the Assad regime loses more territory, the regime has
    stepped up its chemical attacks on the civilian population in
    opposition controlled areas. What first appeared to be random
    and irregular attacks has become a steady, unending series of
    chemical attacks with the aim of decimating the middle class in
    these civilian populations. And, meanwhile, that same Syrian
    middle class tries to hold off ISIS on the ground as ISIS tries
    to overrun their position, so they face a one-two punch of ISIS
    on their border and Assad's barrel bombs with chlorine coming
    down on the population.
        Over 8 weeks this spring, Idlib saw 29 chlorine attacks.
    Most began just 10 days after the U.N. Security Council passed
    a resolution which threatened the use of force against anyone
    found to have used chlorine as a weapon. In almost cases, the
    chlorine was delivered by barrel bomb from a helicopter. Assad
    has seen the world's complacency and decided that he can
    literally get away with mass murder of civilians.
        Anyone can be a target. The regime will even drop one bomb.
    It will then wait for the first responders, and then drop
    another one. Many chlorine attacks take place at night when
    families have taken cover. A heavy gas, a chlorine gas seeps
    down into makeshift bomb shelters. As we'll hear, this toxic
    gas has a horrific impact on the human body: Foaming at the
    mouth, gasping for breath, and dying slow, agonizing deaths as
    the chlorine gas turns to hydrochloric acid in the lungs of the
    victims, many of these victims children.
        Unfortunately, the administration continues its slow
    response. Last month, the President still spoke of needing
    further confirmation that it was the Assad regime that is
    responsible for the chemical attacks. Let's be clear: Only
    Assad's forces have helicopters, only Assad's forces have those
    helicopters take off from Assad's bases and routinely drop
    barrel bombs on the civilian middle class in areas like Allepo.
    Yesterday, Ambassador Power told the committee here that those
    responsible for these attacks must be held accountable. Yes,
    they must, but when? When will they be held accountable?
        U.S. policy has to change. Last month, Ranking Member Engel
    and I offered a successful amendment to the defense policy bill
    directing the Pentagon to closely examine a no-fly zone over
    Syria, denying Assad ownership of the skies. Syrians would no
    longer be forced to choose between staying above ground where
    they could be killed by the shrapnel Assad packs inside the
    barrel bombs, or going below ground where they are more
    vulnerable to suffocating from chlorine gas. The daily decision
    to go to the market, or to go to the school, or to go to sleep
    at night would no longer be a life or death decision.
        Of course, the United States can't do this on its own. It
    would need strong support and participation from our regional
    partners. Many of them have been asking and offering their
    support.
        The administration should also be looking at other more
    immediate, non-military methods that might save lives. Radar
    systems for opposition held area could serve as early warning
    systems. Air raid sirens could sound the alarm. Sensors could
    detect chemical weapons and allow first responders to be
    prepared as they rush to aid victims.
        This can't just keep going on and on. If nothing is done,
    the human tragedy in Syria and the region will reach depths the
    world hasn't seen in generations-taking a human toll, harming
    our security, and sending a powerful and frightening message
    that chemical attacks are tolerated.
        I now yield to Ranking Member Engel, an early and intense
    critic of the Assad regime and someone who has long worked to
    shape Syrian policy toward humanitarian end ever since he first
    called to our attention the people in Damascus walking through
    the streets saying, ``Peaceful, peaceful,'' in their effort to
    reform, and the fact that the Assad regime opened up on the
    civilian population with automatic weapons and slaughtered the
    population in the streets.
        He has long been focused on finding ways to end the civil
    war in Syria, and help the suffering of the Syrian people, and
    I appreciate his leadership on these issues. Mr. Engel.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
    this hearing. Thank you for your leadership and working so
    closely with me to help the Syrian people.
        My heart grieves for the Syrian people. I only wish that we
    had made some different policy choices in Washington 3 years
    ago when the Free Syria Army was begging us to aid and equip
    them. And I said then put in legislation that we should have
    equipped them, and perhaps things would be different today in
    Syria. I know we're still trying to find our way, but when we
    didn't equip them, we had the terrorist group, ISIS, move into
    the void, and it's just been a disaster. But we still have to
    pay attention, and still have to right the wrongs, and still
    have to let the Syrian people know that we stand with them,
    that we're not forgetting about them, and that we're not going
    to stop until these atrocities stop.
        Over the last 4 years, the civil war in Syria has cost
    hundreds of thousands of lives, left millions displaced and
    created a lost generation of Syrian orphans. As their nation
    has been torn apart, the Syrian people have faced a stark
    choice, flee their country as refugees or live every day under
    the threat of Assad's barrel bombs.
        Perhaps the worst chapter in this conflict came in August
    2013 when the Assad regime used sarin gas to wipe out hundreds
    of people in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. Before this
    massacre, only the second time sarin had been used since World
    War II, President Obama said that a chemical weapons attack
    would be a red line.
        As Congress and the administration contemplated military
    action, Assad backed down at that point. He agreed to give us
    his entire chemical weapons stockpile, and signed the Chemical
    Weapons Convention. Last June, the Joint Mission of the
    Organization of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the OPCW,
    and the United Nations announced that all of these weapons had
    been removed from Syria. But now, true to form, Assad is
    testing the international community again.
        In September, the OPCW concluded, and I quote, ``with a
    high level, a high degree of confidence, that chlorine was
    used,'' and this is a quote again, ``systematically and
    repeatedly,'' in attacks in Northern Syria. Since then, more
    chlorine attacks have been reported. Though not as deadly as
    sarin, the use of weaponized chlorine is still a violation of
    the Chemical Weapons Convention.
        Dropping from the sky in Assad's barrel bombs, these
    chlorine attacks have killed or wounded hundreds. Innocent
    civilians have lived in terror knowing what to expect when
    helicopters appeared on the horizon. No one should have to live
    with that kind of fear. That's why Chairman Royce and I offered
    a measure which passed the House last month to direct the
    Pentagon to take a hard look at the possibility of a no-fly
    zone.
        In recent months, Assad has appeared increasingly
    vulnerable. Sadly, that has only made his tactics more
    desperate and violent. Assad remains a magnet for extremists,
    and as long as he remains in power, Syria will not find peace.
    He holds absolutely no place in Syria's future.
        Today's testimony will help us shape U.S. policy toward the
    Assad regime at a critical point in the Syrian conflict. I look
    forward to hearing from our distinguished panel. I'm glad to
    see Ambassador Ford here again, who has been to this committee
    a number of times. And, Ambassador, we are always praising your
    good work, the good work that you have done in the past, and
    the good work that you continue to do. And I look forward to
    our other witnesses, as well.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
        Ambassador Ford, welcome. Ambassador Ford served as the
    United States Ambassador to Algeria from 2006 to 2008, and as
    the U.S. Ambassador to Syria from 2010 to 2014. Prior to that,
    the Ambassador was stationed with the U.S. Foreign Service
    throughout the Middle East and North Africa. He is currently a
    senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.
        Dr. Mohamed Tennari works as the Syrian American Medical
    Society's medical coordinator in Idlib, Syria. He performs
    emergency medicine in local field hospitals. Dr. Tennari
    recently spoke before the United Nations Security Council about
    his experiences treating chlorine attack victims in Syria. Over
    the years, we've had the opportunity tragically to see the
    photographs that he has taken of children that he's treated who
    perished under the gas attacks.
        Mr. Farouq Habib is a program manager at Mayday Rescue
    which is a nonprofit organization that provides support to
    Syria's Civil Defense. Mr. Habib is a leading activist in
    Syria, and in 2012 was invited to speak on humanitarian
    confidence-building measures at the U.N. General Assembly.
        Dr. Annie Sparrow is currently deputy director of the human
    rights program in the Department of Global Health at the Icahn
    School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. Dr. Sparrow has
    been documenting health crisis on the Syrian borders since
    2012.
        And without objection, all of your statements will be made
    part of the record, and our members here will have 5 calendar
    days to submit any statements to you, or any questions, or any
    extraneous material that they might want to submit in the
    record.
        So, we will begin with Ambassador Ford, and we'll ask each
    of you to summarize in 5 minutes for your opening statement.
    Ambassador Ford.

      STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT FORD, SENIOR FELLOW, THE
                         MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE

        Ambassador Ford. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, and
    other distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
    invitation today, and it's a real honor to be on this panel
    with the other members. I'm looking forward very much to seeing
    what they present.
        I would like to thank you very much for having this
    hearing. As you noted, it's an important gesture to Syria and
    Syrian civilians, and it is the right and decent thing to do,
    but it's also really important for our national security
    because the Islamic State in its recruiting efforts, its
    propaganda highlights that western countries like the United
    States don't care about Syrian civilian casualties, and western
    countries don't care that Assad is dropping chemical weapons on
    civilians. So, this hearing is an important step in deflecting
    that Islamic State recruitment propaganda.
        I'd like to just make a couple of quick points. First, in
    the very bitter war of attrition in Syria, the military
    situation is slowly but very steadily turning against President
    Assad and his regime. His forces are running out of manpower,
    and as that dynamic goes forward, the Syrian regime will more
    and more want to use chemical weapons to make up for manpower
    shortages. They are using them more now than they did 2 years
    ago, and they are not deterred from using them. Let me say that
    again. They are not deterred from using them.
        Now, after the horrors of World War I, the second point I
    want to make is that there has long been an international
    consensus not to use chemical weapons, including chlorine gas.
    The Syrian Government is using chlorine gas with impunity, and
    other states like North Korea are observing that impunity. We
    need to understand that an international consensus forged after
    World War I is steadily eroding.
        The third point I'd like to make: Ambassador Power and her
    team at the United Nations State Department are admirably
    trying to forge a new international consensus to stop this use
    of chlorine gas. The United Nations Security Council, even
    Russia and China, approved Resolution 2209 in March. That
    resolution warned the parties in the Syrian conflict that the
    international community would act under Chapter 7 of the U.N.
    Charter against any party in the Syrian conflict that is using
    chemical weapons. And as you mentioned, the Organization to
    Prohibit Chemical Weapons has already stated that they are
    being used in Syria. The problem is the OPCW investigative team
    had no mandate to determine which side in the conflict is using
    chemical weapons. So, Ambassador Power with other members of
    the Security Council now are trying to forge a mandate to
    determine how an investigative committee, an investigative team
    would determine that responsibility.
        Countries like Russia and Iran, both of whose armies in
    wars past have suffered horrible chemical weapons attacks, have
    an interest in working with us to stop this violation of a
    longstanding international norm.
        Finally, if the United Nations Security Council cannot act,
    and we have seen Russian vetoes before, then the United States
    needs to be ready to act within a smaller coalition. We could
    help Syrians identify and interdict chemical weapons attacks.
    We could also act with regional states to impose a no-fly zone,
    if necessary, to stop chemical weapons attacks. A no-fly zone
    would both save lives, and if properly negotiated and properly
    implemented, would actually facilitate getting to national
    political negotiations.
        It's important to keep our eyes focused on priorities now
    in the short term to stop attacks that violate longstanding
    international norms, and in the long term to use any
    applications of force, direct or indirect, to move toward a
    political settlement in Syria. Ultimately, only a political
    settlement will really protect Syrian civilians.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Ambassador Ford follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Ambassador.
        Dr. Tennari.

     STATEMENT OF MOHAMED TENNARI, M.D., IDLIB COORDINATOR, SYRIAN-
                        AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY

        [The following testimony was delivered through an
    interpreter.]
        Dr. Tennari. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and
    honorable members of the committee on the House Foreign Affairs
    Committee, on behalf of the Syrian-American Medical Society and
    on behalf of Syrian medical professionals, and on behalf of the
    Syrian people, I thank you for the opportunity to speak in
    front of you today.
        I have traveled here today from my Province of Idlib in
    order to witness in front of you about the experiences of the
    chemical weapons use that I witnessed in Syria.
        Four years ago, I helped establish a field hospital in
    Sarmin, in Idlib Province. This is our fourth building after
    the first two were destroyed by Assad bombing. The Syrian
    Government systematically targets hospitals and ambulances in
    all non-government controlled areas. Even our field hospital
    that we operate in today has been subject to the bombing of the
    Assad regime 17 times, not to mention the systematic targeting
    of physicians in Syria on a regular basis only for being out
    there and treating people.
        I, myself, was arrested at the beginning of the revolution
    twice in 2011. My other medical colleagues have not been as
    lucky as I, and more of my friends are dead than those that are
    left alive.
        Over the last 4 years we have seen horrific violence
    against the civilians in Syria. That was in the form of barrel
    bombs, missile attacks, and regular shelling. In the past 3
    months we have experienced a new type of terror, and that is in
    the form of barrel bombs that contain chemical weapons. Since
    March 16th of this year, we have documented 31 attacks using
    poisonous gas in Idlib Province, where more than 380 Syrian
    civilians were injured by it. Ten of them died of suffocation.
    The last attack was yesterday in Allepo in a small town.
        I remember well the night of March 16th when the first
    attack of poisonous gas was used. I heard helicopters over my
    house around 8:45 p.m., and I heard on my walkie-talkie the
    reports that there was another chemical attack that had just
    happened. I left my house immediately to head to the field
    hospital, and as soon as I left the house, I could smell
    chlorine bleach in the air. As soon as I arrived at the
    hospital there were many victims that had beaten me there, and
    all of them had symptoms of being subjected to suffocating,
    poisonous gas.
        Dozens of people experienced difficulty breathing, and
    their eyes and throats were burning. They were also secreting
    saliva and foam from their mouth. We were laying bodies on the
    floor because all of our beds were completely full, and our
    small hospital turned into a place of chaos and screaming. We
    started treating them by giving them oxygen gas and inhalers,
    as well as using different antidotes like Atropine and
    Intropine.
        As soon as we finished treating this first wave of people,
    we received another wave of people that came from another
    attack that hit Sarmin. From those who came in with that second
    wave, I saw my own friend, Mr. Waref Taleb. He, his wife, his
    mother, and three of his children under the age of three all
    came in with injuries. The three kids were all suffering from
    symptoms of being exposed to poisonous gas as they arrived. And
    this is a video from that night.
        [Video played.]
        Dr. Tennari. This is the Town of Sarmin. This is the
    children that have been exposed to poisonous gas tonight. The
    reason they're on top of each other is because the hospital had
    no room for any more victims.
        Everything that we did for them was not enough to save
    their lives. The barrel bomb had fallen through the ventilation
    shaft in their house and has turned their house and their
    basement into a gas chamber.
        I wish that this event was something that is unique or a
    one-time thing, but this is a regular event that goes on. On
    April 16th, only--very soon after this--1 month after this
    attack, I testified in front of the United Nations Security
    Council. Less than 2 hours after I finished my testimony I got
    another call saying that there was another chlorine attack,
    another poison gas attack that happened in Idlib Province. And
    as I sit here in front of you, I fear again that I may get a
    call in a couple of hours that tells me there was another
    chemical attack that has happened in my town.
        These chlorine-filled bombs are falling regularly over
    civilian areas, and this is what we call collective punishment
    by the Assad regime against the opposition. And although these
    attacks are not causing a huge amount of death, it has caused a
    lot of terror within the populations forcing people to become
    internally displaced and refugees. And this is what I consider
    the goal of the Assad regime in these attacks: To help displace
    the populations.
        In reaction to these chemical attacks by the regime, the
    international community gave us some medicines, including
    Atropine. And this is incredibly disappointing. That means the
    international community knows that the Assad regime will be
    using chemical weapons attacks against us, and will do nothing
    to prevent it. What we need is not Atropine, what we need is
    urgent help to stop these aerial attacks.
        I can tell you as a doctor that the number one cause of
    death of people in Syria are the explosive barrel bombs. And
    our number one and our main ask is for the international
    community to help protect us from these aerial attacks. And if
    it means using a no-fly zone, that would so be it. I ask you to
    please work closely and urgently with the White House to figure
    out a plan to help stop these aerial attacks that are regularly
    bombarding us.
        I want to thank the committee for its leadership in
    addressing this important topic of ongoing chemical attacks in
    Syria. I hope bearing witness in front of you today can help
    show the dire need for immediate aid to help the civilians in
    Syria, and I hope that you move to take urgent action to end
    the barrel bombs and the chemical attacks in Syria. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Tennari follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Dr. Tennari.
        We go now to Mr. Habib.

     STATEMENT OF MR. FAROUQ HABIB, SYRIA PROGRAM MANAGER, MAYDAY
                                 RESCUE

        Mr. Habib. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and
    distinguished members of the committee, allow me first to thank
    you for giving me this opportunity to testify about the ongoing
    tragedy that the Syrian people are living through, particularly
    those who are the victims of the attacks of the chemical
    weapons, despite multiple international resolutions that
    prohibit using these horrific weapons.
        My name is Farouq Habib. When the Syrian revolution began,
    I was working as a banker in a private Syrian bank. My belief
    that my people have the right to live with dignity and freedom
    obliged me to join the peaceful movement to defend the human
    rights in Syria. Currently, I'm working for Mayday Rescue,
    managing the training and equipping program for rescue teams in
    Syria known as the White Helmets.
        Through my years of activism inside Syria since the
    beginning of the revolution, I personally witnessed deliberate
    attacks by the regime forces against civilians, hospitals, and
    rescue teams that were initially working spontaneously.
        Later, Syrians, particularly those in liberated areas, had
    to establish civil defense groups with only the tools available
    to them in order to respond to the intense and indiscriminate
    attacks. I now work with this organization to assist in
    responding to these attacks. Through my job, I constantly work
    with field search and rescue teams to determine their needs and
    find solutions for the challenges they face. Therefore, I
    closely monitor the attacks, particularly those carried out by
    unconventional weapons, as they pose the greatest challenge.
        These teams have faced an exceptional challenge with the
    regime's use of barrel bombs as a horrific tool to impose
    collective punishment against communities out of the regime's
    control. These TNT-filled weapons which eject nails, metal
    scrap, and other random cheap and harmful shrapnel take dozens
    of innocent lives every day, but for many Syrians have become
    merely traditional weapons compared to the more advanced bombs
    the regime developed by adding chlorine gas, which is
    inexpensive and readily available. This primitive, cheap, and
    indiscriminate weapon has become a source of constant panic
    among Syrian civilians due to the fear it spreads when people
    hear the news of its use in nearby areas.
        This dirty chemical weapon causes physical injuries that
    show through symptoms like suffocating and fainting, and can
    lead to death if the injured are not attended to in due course.
    These weapons are most dangerous if inhaled by people stranded
    in small spaces, and that is what happens to those stranded
    under the rubble of buildings that collapse on top of their
    residence due to the force of barrel bombs.
        Starting from the 16th of March this year, the regime
    resumed its chemical attacks against the opposition areas. Only
    10 days after the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2209, which
    reaffirmed the prohibition and use of chlorine gas as a weapon
    and classified it as chemical warfare. The resolution also
    warned of taking action under Chapter 7 in the event it's used
    again in Syria. This resolution is related to a previous
    resolution, 2113, which was released in 2015, and that called
    for destroying Syria's chemical weapons, and also for taking
    action under Chapter 7 in the event the chemical weapons are
    used. Resolution 2209 is also related to the 2014 Resolution
    2139 which prohibits using conventional barrel bombs as weapons
    in Syria due to their indiscriminate nature.
        Unfortunately, during the 3 months that followed Resolution
    2209, the number of chlorine attacks was more than double those
    in the entire previous year. Yes, I repeat again. The number of
    chlorine attacks was more than double those in the entire
    previous year just after the Security Council resolution.
        Between March 16th and June 9th in 2015, Syria's Civil
    Defense Teams responded to 23 air raids, during which 46 barrel
    bombs containing chlorine gas were dropped. And, of course, the
    actual number of the chemical attacks was even higher.
        I don't think that anyone among this audience here today
    has the slightest degree of uncertainty about the identity of
    the perpetrator. There are hundreds of pieces of evidence
    including photographs, videos, and testimonies like the ones I
    attach here proving that this gas spreads from the aerially
    dropped barrel bombs, usually delivered by helicopters. As
    everyone knows, and as Ambassador Samantha Power has repeatedly
    noted, the Assad regime is the only one using helicopters in
    Syria excluding, of course, the coalition forces.
        Ladies and gentlemen, when I was struggling in Homs for
    democracy, I and my colleagues believed that there were nations
    around the world that supported the spread of democracy. I
    believed, and I organized others to rise up and challenge the
    dictatorship of Bashar al Assad, and have been waiting for 4
    years for my faith in the values on which this great country
    was founded to be demonstrated.
        The dictator of Syria claims that he is fighting the
    Islamic State, but only last week both he and the Islamic State
    were attacking together the armed opposition in Northern
    Allepo. And just a few hours ago, the regime used chemical
    weapons again in Allepo City, itself.
        The legitimacy of the international community crumbles when
    it becomes merely ink on paper, forgotten in drawers of
    bureaucracy to become fatal.
        As the greatest power in today's world, the United States,
    along with other international powers that chant human rights
    slogans and spread the values of justice and democracy, should
    move immediately to stop the killing machine operated by the
    Assad regime against the Syrian people. This can be done
    through imposing a no-fly zone that would prevent the regime's
    aircraft from continuing to drop chemical barrel bombs. A no-
    fly zone would also help to create a safe haven for civilians.
    No one can no longer use as an excuse the Security Council's
    inability to impose its resolutions because in reality, for
    oppressed people everywhere, it has become the Insecurity
    Council due to its blatant failure to protect them. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Habib follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. Doctor.

      STATEMENT OF ANNIE SPARROW, M.B.B.S., DEPUTY DIRECTOR HUMAN
      RIGHTS PROGRAM, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF GLOBAL HEALTH, ICAHN
                   SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI

        Dr. Sparrow. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel,
    distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting
    me to speak today.
        For 2 years now, I've been traveling to the Syrian border
    where I do three things. As a critical care pediatrician, I
    train doctors inside Syria. As a doctor experienced in wars,
    many wars, I track and document the violations of medical
    neutrality and other human rights violations. And as a global
    health specialist, I track the devastating public health
    consequences which are, indeed, a consequence of the way Assad
    has chosen to fight this war by targeting civilians, by
    attacking doctors, by destroying hospitals and other civilian
    infrastructure that is vital to health. And it's no accident
    that since March the 16th when the chlorine attacks renewed
    that the assaults on hospitals was likewise escalated.
        We know that after the chemical massacre August 2013, Assad
    was forced to give up his stockpiles of sarin but,
    unfortunately, that doesn't work for chlorine, because unlike
    sarin, chlorine has legitimate and deeply important uses, the
    most important of which is its ability to decontaminate our
    drinking water. Syrians need it, just as America does. In fact,
    the way Assad has even withheld chlorine from opposition
    territory has fueled epidemics of disease, such as the polio
    outbreak of 2013 which then spread to Iraq. This in itself is
    an indirect method of biological warfare.
        And on top of that, chlorine is easy to manufacture. It's
    even cheaply made from readily available industrial
    ingredients. Many of these bombs we know are made domestically,
    so forcing Assad to give up stockpiles just doesn't work here.
    We have to stop Assad using it as a chemical weapon. And let me
    be quite clear here, using chlorine to kill and terrorize
    people makes it into a chemical weapon, a violation of the
    Chemical Weapons Convention, and Obama's redline even when the
    substance also has legitimate uses.
        As you've heard, these bombs are delivered simply by
    rolling them out of helicopters, which is the same way the
    barrel bombs, a far more effective way of killing people, are
    delivered. But together, the barrel bombs and the chlorine
    bombs create maximum trauma and terror. And the way he is using
    both currently to target civilians and hospitals is
    spectacularly effective in driving the exodus of millions of
    refugees and compounding this public health crisis, which has
    regional and global repercussions.
        Germs don't need passports. We've seen that very clearly
    with polio and Ebola. Assad's denial of chlorine and his use of
    it as a chemical weapon puts us all in danger.
        We know that U.N. Security Council isn't working because of
    the Russian veto, so here's where the U.S. working with its
    willing partners can come up with its own response. We've
    talked a little today about a no-fly zone. I believe at this
    stage the most practical approach is a highly specific no-fly
    zone.
        Assad may have valid uses for transporting troops to fight
    ISIS, but neither the barrel bombs nor chemical weapons are
    used to fight ISIS. They're not used to fight any combatants.
    Some of you will have seen on the maps that these attacks are
    nowhere near ISIS, or even front lines, and so they can be
    stopped without impeding Assad's or our own ability to fight
    ISIS.
        First of all, establishing a limited no bombing civilian
    zone is enforceable because the bombs are rolled out of these
    slow-moving helicopters over Northwestern Syria predominantly,
    easily accessible from the coast, well within reach of U.S.
    boats.
        Secondly, it's pragmatic because we know Assad is
    responsive to the credible threat of force. We know he does.
    It's strategic because it undermines one of ISIS' most powerful
    tools of recruitment, that it alone can offer protection from
    Assad's atrocities. It's responsible because it mitigates the
    flow of refugees which gets at global security. But most
    importantly, creating a no bomb zone would stop the most
    important tools that are being used to slaughter and terrorize
    Syrian civilians, especially the children who are the most
    vulnerable, as you've seen, to these toxic gases, and whose
    small bodies are literally ripped apart by the hideous shrapnel
    filling these explosive barrel bombs.
        I'm a doctor, and I'm very familiar with death, but I have
    never seen a more obscene way to kill children. I've never
    watched so many suffer in such an obscene manner. Syrian
    children and Syrian civilians deserve protection, and the
    United States can provide it.
        I really hope this committee today will prevail upon the
    Obama administration to act to do so. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Sparrow follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Annie. I appreciate that, Dr.
    Sparrow. Thank you very much for your very concise arguments
    that you laid out. I thank all the witnesses for all that
    they've tried to do in this humanitarian crisis over the years.
        One of the questions I was going to ask you is that I know
    that the Turkish Government raised the issue of a no-fly zone
    when asked to help. Their point was there's a humanitarian
    crisis in terms of the number of refugees from the cities
    coming over our border. It looks to me is that what primarily
    drives that, one of the issues that really drives it is the
    dropping of these barrel bombs from these MI-17 Helicopters.
        It seems to me, as you laid out that argument, Annie, that
    there is a very effective way that Turkish, Jordanian, UAE,
    U.S., French, Canadian, and British air power in the region can
    simply check or chase out of the skies these helicopters, these
    Russian-made helicopters that, you know, are cumbersome and
    slow to move, but they're effective at one thing, just as those
    old Antonov planes that dropped barrel bombs are effective at
    doing. They're not effective using against military forces,
    particularly, but they can be enormously effective in use
    against civilian populations in dropping things like barrel
    bombs on cities. And because we have a circumstance now where
    the blowback is such that those who are fighting ISIS in places
    like Allepo have to have this two-front war of battling ISIS on
    the ground, while looking up over their shoulder up to the
    skies to see when the Assad regime is going to again hit them,
    because his preoccupation is carrying out his effort which
    slowly drives the Syrian people, you know, over the border into
    Turkey, or into Jordan. And it would seem as though the logical
    thing to do would be to ground those helicopters and those
    Antonov planes when they do things like this; just chase them
    out of the sky and put an end to this. But for that to happen
    it takes a decisive decision to act, a decisive decision to say
    no, you won't drop chemical weapons any longer.
        Anyway, your thoughts on that, Dr. Sparrow.
        Dr. Sparrow. Thank you, Chairman Royce. Indeed, this is the
    main driver of the flow of refugees. If you can put a map up,
    it's easy to see that these are civilian areas, and our
    preoccupation with ISIS is distracting us from these systematic
    assaults on civilian homes, and neighborhoods, and hospitals,
    and schools.
        In the last month alone, there have been 35 attacks by the
    government on hospitals by air strikes. No one else has this
    air capacity. So the civilians are being driven out, the
    children are dying, they have to seek healthcare, and the
    doctors are dying in the hospitals. There are so many ways to
    die in Syria. So many of my colleagues have been forced to
    leave, and our best bet at mitigating this in so many ways, as
    I said, we can do it from the sea. We can just chase them out
    of the skies.
        After the sarin attack, Assad didn't bomb anyone for 10
    days because of the credible threat of use of force. That's
    really significant. To chase them out of the skies means the
    creation of a humanitarian space enabling us the safe passage
    of humanitarian aid or medicines. We allow children and people
    to stay inside Syria, and this is important because no one
    wants to be a refugee. Turkey has 2 million refugees already,
    of the 4 million refugees, at least. We don't need more
    refugees, and they don't want to be refugees. We can enable
    them to stay safely in their own country, and curb these
    obscene breaches of humanity that are such effective tools of
    terror and destruction so easily in a way that unites us all,
    and a very practical consensus that doesn't involve shooting
    down or fixed wing aircraft. It's just stopping those
    helicopters, as you described, which push those barrels out,
    just as they did in Darfur with the genocide of civilians.
    There's nowhere to hide.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Dr. Sparrow. Dr. Tennari, your
    thoughts on what could be done in order to stop the helicopter
    attacks that drop the barrel bombs?
        Dr. Tennari. The air strikes are focused mostly on hitting
    civilians. We haven't seen, for example, these air strikes used
    in such focus against militant groups on the ground, or
    training camps, and so on. What we need to end these attacks is
    to establish a no-fly zone.
        Some may argue, including in yesterday's testimony of
    Ambassador Power, that implementing a no-fly zone may aid
    extremism. Although I have great respect for Ambassador Power,
    I do not agree with her on this. I live in Syria, and I never
    see these helicopters and airplanes used against extremists or
    against training camps, and so on. All we see is these planes
    and helicopters being used against hospitals, against schools,
    and against general civilian populations. And I don't know how
    saving the lives of these civilians and ending this can in any
    way help extremists.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you. I think my time has expired.
    I'll go to Mr. Engel.
        Mr. Engel. Well, I want to thank all of our witnesses. Each
    of you really gave outstanding testimony, and I'm not usually
    speechless, but after watching those pictures of the children
    dying, I'm speechless. I just don't know what to say. We had an
    earlier hearing in this committee probably about less than a
    year ago where we had a photographer who smuggled his pictures
    out of Syria, and we saw something very similar: Bodies after
    bodies, hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of
    dead bodies obviously killed by gas and other horrific things.
    And it just really disgusts me that, you know, the United
    Nations--I'm from New York. The United Nations, they sit and
    they spin their wheels, and this type of murder of civilians
    keeps going on, and the world is silent.
        Ambassador Ford, let me ask you. Obviously, the use of
    chlorine gas is a violation, a serious allegation under the
    Chemical Weapons Convention. What should be the consequences of
    this violation in your opinion?
        Ambassador Ford. Ideally, what we would like, Congressman
    Engel, is for the persons responsible in the Syrian military
    chain of command to be held accountable. To do that, we need
    two things. We need, one, an investigation with a mandate to
    determine responsibility. You know, there are people up in New
    York, you were just talking about the United Nations. There are
    still countries in New York that are arguing that the Syrian
    opposition is responsible for chemical weapons attacks, not the
    Syrian Government, so it's important that some kind of an
    investigative team have a mandate to go do that. I know
    Ambassador Power is trying to work that now.
        Second thing in order to hold people accountable is, we
    need to get, finally, to some kind of a settlement in Syria
    where officers responsible for these attacks are ultimately
    produced for justice. That will have to be part of a larger
    settlement.
        Mr. Engel. You know, last September the Organization for
    the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons concluded, as I said in my
    statement, ``with a high degree of confidence,'' that's their
    words, that ``chlorine was used systematically and
    repeatedly,'' that's their words, in attacks in Northern Syria.
    But what puzzles me is that the OPCW did not attribute
    responsibility to the Assad regime. It just boggles my mind.
    I'd like your comment on that.
        Ambassador Ford. Exactly, Congressman. They did not have a
    mandate to determine responsibility; although, if you read
    between the lines of their report where they mentioned that the
    eyewitness accounts consistently spoke of the chemical weapons
    being delivered by helicopters. That, in a sense, points the
    finger squarely at the regime, even if the Organization's
    report did not specifically say the Syrian Government did the
    attacks, or carried them out.
        But I think in order to get some kind of Chapter 7 action
    out of the Security Council we will actually need a very
    blatant statement that says it is, in fact, the Syrian
    Government that is doing this. Were we able to get that
    statement, I think it would be much more difficult for any
    country in the Security Council to use a veto.
        Mr. Engel. You know, President Obama was set to launch
    military strikes in 2013 in August. I remember that really
    well, against Syria if the regime were to use chemical weapons.
    Obviously, when they announced plans to dispose of its weapons,
    the administration backed away from its threats to strike.
        You know, when there is inaction on the part of the United
    States and other countries of the free world, I think that
    dictators and despots use that as a carte blanche to continue
    to do what they have done, and I'm afraid that we're seeing
    more and more of that.
        Dr. Sparrow, do you want to add anything to your testimony?
    I thank you for your good work, and pleased that we have you as
    a witness.
        Dr. Sparrow. Thank you. I believe we still have an
    opportunity to act, and every day there are more barrel bombs.
    Yesterday, 21 kids were killed with their moms at summer camp.
    We get tired almost of talking about these attacks because
    there are so many, and the brutality goes on.
        We now have an opportunity to do something that is very
    practical, doesn't involve boots on the ground, and actually
    enables a consensus to mitigate this crisis in so many ways.
    And even to focus on Northwestern Syria as a starting point, it
    does send a clear message that we don't want to tolerate this
    brutal breach of humanity any longer. And it is a radicalizing
    factor toward ISIS, so we can be strategic here in so many
    ways, and be clear that a sea-based no-fly zone doesn't curb
    any efforts, Assad's, our own, the coalition's ability to fight
    ISIS; rather, it stops the radicalization, but most
    importantly, it does protect the civilians. This means Muslim
    kids, Christian kids, Alawites, Druze, all those children are
    still in Syria and they all deserve protection, too.
        The permanent psychological fallout of these chemical
    weapons doesn't go away. An awful thing about bombing with gas
    is that you can't hear the explosion, you can only find out
    about it when it comes with the smell. It sinks, that's why
    it's done at night. If you bomb a hospital, a lot of the
    hospitals are actually in basements, so you're actually
    contaminating the hospital. There's nowhere to hide, and you
    don't know.
        Last year, he bought canisters from China, so it was easy
    just to roll canisters of liquid chlorine which vaporized under
    pressure, but this year we see this domestic production, these
    improvised chlorine bombs made out of easy ingredients like
    hydrochloric acid, potassium permanganate, so it's so easy to
    make. We have to do something that actually stops the aerial
    onslaught, because that is the key here to really mitigating
    the worst humanitarian crisis.
        Mr. Engel. Well, thank you. You know, people who say that
    ISIS is our real enemy and somehow we should look the other way
    with Assad because he's the one standing up to ISIS should
    watch this hearing, and hopefully they change their minds.
        Chairman Royce. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Engel. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Mr. Engel, from what I've seen in watching
    the aerial campaign over Allepo, it is, in fact, the Assad
    regime. I think you might agree that in dropping the barrel
    bombs on the Free Syrian Army and on the civilian population in
    Allepo, while at the same time ISIS is attacking Allepo on the
    outskirts of the city he, in fact, is working hand in glove
    with ISIS, because his goal, seemingly, is to drive the
    civilian population out of all of these areas using ISIS on the
    ground to do it, since ISIS doesn't attack his forces or rarely
    does, and carries out their objection or their focus,
    seemingly, on the civilian population, which is his target, as
    well. It seems to me that the Syrian people have two enemies in
    this. One is Assad, and the other is ISIS.
        Mr. Engel. Well, that's a very astute observation which I
    concur. And let me conclude by thanking Dr. Tennari and Mr.
    Habib for your courage in coming here, and for letting the
    world know what's really going on in Syria. We really
    appreciate it and, hopefully, with a better future for the
    Syrian people, both of you will be regarded as heroes in the
    future for bringing your message to the rest of the world. We
    stand with you, and we hope that the Syrian people will soon be
    free of this scourge from Assad. Thank you.
        Chairman Royce. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is the chairwoman of
    the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        There should be no doubt that Assad is, in fact, the one
    responsible for the horrific humanitarian crisis, the violence,
    the killing in Syria. I think those who still say it's the
    opposition, they're looking for an excuse to be a non-actor,
    and a person who is enabling Assad to continue with these
    atrocities like the use of chemical weapons and barrel bombs
    against innocent civilians.
        I see no urgency, however, from the Obama administration
    aimed at pressuring Assad to go. We could be destroying and
    neutralizing Assad's air capabilities, sanctioning Assad, his
    military officials, or any other entity, including the Russians
    and the Iranians, that are supporting him, and we could be
    focusing our efforts here in Congress to passing a substantive
    authorization of the use of military force in AUMF that not
    only authorizes military force against ISIL, but also against
    Assad, al-Nusra, and any other terrorist entity operating in
    Syria.
        Our Train and Equip Program in Syria may not be enough.
    According to the latest reports, only 2,000 fighters have been
    identified, 400 have been vetted, only 90 have begun training,
    and DOD says that the program is not aimed at attacking Assad.
    We've got to change our strategy in Syria because attempting to
    degrade and defeat ISIL while forcing the very ones we are
    training and equipping to promise, they have to promise to not
    attack Assad, makes little, if any, sense.
        In the meantime, the Assad regime has been responsible for
    30 chlorine bomb attacks from March to June, just in that time
    span. While the first chemical weapons attacks in Syria were
    reportedly with sarin gas, subsequent attacks, as we know, have
    all been with chlorine. So, I wanted to ask the panelists,
    first, is there any evidence of other chemical weapons being
    used in Syria today other than chlorine? And, also, in his
    latest book, former Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren has said
    that the Russian plan to remove chemical weapons from Syria
    originated with an Israeli minister. Ambassador Ford, I wanted
    to know how you would characterize the Obama administration's
    handling of the whole situation from the red line, if you cross
    it, we're not going to forget about that. We're going to take
    action, and then nothing happens, to the plan to remove
    chemical weapons. And what role might Israel have played in all
    of this? And, lastly, it's well known that Russia continues to
    prop up the Assad regime. What leverage do we have in the U.S.
    over Russia to persuade it to change its calculus on Assad, and
    assist in removing him from power? And what about the other
    countries in the region, what could they do, as well?
    Ambassador?
        Ambassador Ford. Thank you, Congresswoman. With respect to
    Ambassador Oren's comments about the Israeli role, from where I
    sat inside the State Department in the autumn of 2013, I did
    not see a visible Israeli role, and so I just can't comment on
    what he wrote in his book. It wasn't visible to us at the upper
    working level, shall I say.
        With respect to what happened in 2013, in retrospect,
    obviously, laying out a red line and then not enforcing it has
    hurt our credibility not only inside Syria, but it certainly
    has not acted to deter Assad, and it's probably hurt us
    regionally and internationally. It's just a matter of record.
        I would also add that I came up to this committee with
    Secretary Kerry, and it was a hard sell here on Capitol Hill at
    the time, Congresswoman, so----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Some of us were there trying to help
    out----
        Ambassador Ford. It's not to excuse----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. But the team sort of left
    the field.
        Ambassador Ford. It's not to excuse policy decisions, it is
    simply to say that policy decisions are hard.
        I think going forward, as I said in my opening statement,
    it's really important to figure out how to deter Assad. I don't
    think that he can be deterred without some kind of indirect or
    direct military action. The totality of my Syrian contacts for
    years have described his regime as really paying attention only
    to military, whether it be American or other, to military
    actions. Thank you.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Just quickly comment on how you evaluate
    the Training and Equip Program that we have going in Syria now.
        Ambassador Ford. I think you're referring to the one that's
    using the Department of Defense Program monies. And I have two
    comments on it. Number one, the scale of it is not enough, even
    to really affect the Islamic State which deploys in Syria
    somewhere between 15-, 20-, 25,000 fighters. For us to inject
    2-, 3-, 4-, or 5,000 I don't think is going to make a huge
    difference. And I'm not even talking about the logistical
    problems that force would have.
        But more broadly speaking, Congresswoman, I do not think we
    will be successful convincing many Syrian experienced and
    capable fighters to pledge only to fight the Islamic State and
    not to fight the Assad regime. I don't excuse the Syrians in
    that, but I think it's important for Americans to understand
    that the Assad regime is responsible for the deaths of maybe
    150,000 to 200,000 people in Syria. The Islamic State is
    horrible, it's brutal, it's awful, it's killed maybe 4,000 to
    5,000 Syrians. So, if you're sitting where a Syrian sits, the
    Assad regime's brutality is worse even than that of the Islamic
    State, as horrible as it is.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Chairman Royce. We'll go now to Mr. Brad Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. The moral dilemma that America faces in this
    circumstance is far more complex than we face almost anywhere
    else. The path of righteousness is far from clear. It would
    help our moral dilemma if ISIS and Assad were secret allies,
    and they were acting as such last year, but this year the ISIS
    forces have engaged Assad and taken territory.
        It would be easier for us from a moral dilemma standpoint
    if Assad was killing people mostly with gas, but as Dr. Tennari
    points out, it is the explosive bombs that are killing most of
    the civilians, and causing terrible death, dismemberment.
    Dropping explosive bombs is the number one tactic of the United
    States in military actions this century. Dropping bombs with
    explosives is entirely legal if you're aiming at legitimate
    military targets, not only at other combatants, but also at
    legitimate strategic targets like refineries.
        So then for these explosive bombs, the issue is whether
    Assad is deliberately striking civilians, and the evidence is
    overwhelming that he is. But the fact this his explosive bombs
    are shaped like barrels is not legally or morally significant.
    The fact that he is using the explosives dropped from airplanes
    is not illegal. The fact that he is targeting civilians is.
        It's, I think, wrong to say that the United States has done
    nothing to help the Syrian people. Through our actions, perhaps
    not carefully scripted, Assad has been deprived of his sarin
    gas, his mustard gas, his nerve agents. If he still had these
    and was willing to use them, he would have killed hundreds of--
    100 times and more, more people than had been killed by the
    chlorine gas.
        Providing Atropine is, I think, not to be dismissed;
    though, of course, it is not enough to stop the death.
    Although, a no-fly zone would not stop the chlorine death, and
    the chlorine can be delivered on the ground, as well. So, the
    issue is a no-fly zone, and how we might tailor that.
        I would point out that the AUMF that we're operating under,
    and which we should be revising in this committee, authorizes
    virtually any action against Sunni extremists, and does not
    authorize any action against the extreme Shiites, including
    Assad who, as the Ambassador points out, has killed well more
    than 150,000 people.
        As to us dealing with hitting Assad, and thereby depriving
    ISIS of a recruiting tool, they've got many recruiting tools,
    and if they're able to seize more territory from Assad and put
    their flag up in this or that Syrian town, that will also be a
    recruiting tool. But I think the Shiite extremists are more
    dangerous to America, and as Ambassador Ford points out, have
    killed far more Middle East civilians than has ISIS, and that
    the question is how do we craft a no-fly zone.
        Is there--but, first, Ambassador Ford, we've heard that the
    strategic reason Assad is using these tactics against civilians
    is to force them to leave. What military advantage is he trying
    to get? Where is he trying to get them to leave from? Where is
    he trying to get civilians to go to, and how does that help
    him?
        Ambassador Ford. Congressman, the reason the Assad regime
    is targeting civilians the way it is, is it's literally trying
    to drain the sea that supports the Armed Opposition. So, they
    have been quite unsuccessful in defeating the Armed Opposition
    fighters, and they have turned with ever greater ferocity on
    the civilians that support them. And that's why they're trying
    to depopulate Eastern Allepo, for example, because that is
    where the Armed Opposition has one of its strongholds.
        Mr. Sherman. So, they're aiming to depopulate all Sunni
    areas of Syria, or only particular neighborhoods where they
    think there's strong support for the Opposition?
        Ambassador Ford. They're, obviously, not trying to
    depopulate urban areas under regime control. But where the
    regime is not in control, Congressman, the Opposition is, it's
    a national opposition, it's national in size, national in
    scope, and so they will target almost any place from the south
    to the north, to the east and the west.
        Mr. Sherman. So, wherever there are civilians under
    Opposition control, Assad assumes those civilians want to be
    under Opposition control, support the Opposition, and is trying
    to turn them into residents of camps in Turkey and elsewhere.
        Ambassador Ford. Correct. If civilians in a particular area
    do not themselves fight against the Armed Opposition, then they
    are for the regime fair targets.
        Mr. Sherman. Good. I want to try to sneak in one more
    question with Dr. Sparrow.
        Would our no-fly zone efforts in order to prevent the use
    of chemical weapons need to be only against helicopters, or
    would we also need to shoot down his fixed wing aircraft?
        Dr. Sparrow. As you pointed out, Congressman, this chlorine
    is being delivered overwhelmingly from the air. It's not like
    sarin which required sophisticated ground missiles to deliver
    it. It's coming from the air, it's being rolled out, whether in
    canisters or homemade bombs. And as I said, it's very easy, so
    it is not requiring fixed wing aircraft. It's the----
        Mr. Sherman. No, no. I'm asking, if Assad's helicopters
    were grounded, would that solve the problem, or would his fixed
    wing aircraft also deliver these barrel bombs filled with
    chlorine gas?
        Dr. Sparrow. Fixed aircraft will keep on killing, but these
    are civilian targets. And I say that because chemical weapons
    never kill as many as conventional weapons. In World War I,
    they killed 100,000 of the 10 million dead, but they are so
    effective at scattering people, driving them out. In wars of
    attrition, they're a beautiful tool, a very strategic tool, and
    they are consistent with their strategy. So, a fixed wing
    aircraft can keep on attacking ISIS in Deir ez-Zor, or Kobani,
    but this strategy will protect civilians.
        Mr. Sherman. So, you're proposing just an anti-helicopter
    strategy?
        Dr. Sparrow. Yes.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
        Chairman Royce. Let's see. Next in the queue, Mr. Ted Poe
    of Texas.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being
    here. I'm a little out of breath.
        Ambassador Ford, my questions are directed primarily to
    you. If we have time, we'll have all of the witnesses weigh in
    on it.
        What is the U.S. policy regarding Assad?
        Ambassador Ford. In brief, Congressman.
        Mr. Poe. Yes, in brief.
        Ambassador Ford. The United States views him, I think in
    his official policy, the President has stated it many times
    that he has no legitimacy, and he should step aside in favor of
    a new national unity transition government. The problem, very
    frankly, is that's a nice strategy, but there are no tactics
    for making that happen.
        Mr. Poe. Let me ask you about the tactics. Going all the
    way back to Gerald Ford, reiterated by Jimmy Carter, Ronald
    Reagan, President Bush, all issued statements or Executive
    Orders regarding the fact that the United States does not
    assassinate heads of state. Is that generally our policy?
        Ambassador Ford. Yes, sir, it is.
        Mr. Poe. Now, in 2011, NATO bombed the house where Gaddafi
    was staying but missed him, and then later in October he was
    killed. I'm not sure we know who actually was responsible for
    that, but--so, why doesn't the United States, if Assad is so
    bad, he's killed 200,000 of his own people, and put that in
    perspective. Americans lost 400,000 in World War II killed,
    military, so that's a lot of folks, 200,000. Why don't we just
    assassinate him? And then we get rid of him; he's gone, he's
    the bad guy, he's gone. But why don't we do that?
        Ambassador Ford. As you said, Congressman, it's not our
    policy to assassinate people. With respect to Libya, there was
    a United Nations Security Council resolution which authorized
    Chapter 7 action. We don't have that in Syria.
        Mr. Poe. Okay.
        Ambassador Ford. Which has been a factor in the
    administration's considerations. I think going forward, while I
    don't advocate assassinating President----
        Mr. Poe. And I'm not saying we should, either. I'm just
    asking the question.
        Ambassador Ford. Yes. But I think in going forward, to the
    extent that the United States remains committed only to
    operating under Chapter 7 approved by the Security Council, the
    United States will almost certainly not be able to influence
    events on the ground in Syria. And that, in turn, poses risks
    to our own national security.
        Mr. Poe. Okay. Why hasn't OPCW said who's responsible for
    the chemical attacks? Why haven't they done that?
        Ambassador Ford. Their mandate was only to (a) oversee the
    dismantling of the declared Syrian chemical weapons program,
    and (2) to investigate in an intrusive manner where other sites
    that were not declared but might be potential chemical weapons
    facilities. And, in fact, they discovered four, but they never
    had a mandate. They never--let me say that again. They never
    had a mandate to determine who was responsible for using
    chemical weapons.
        Mr. Poe. All right. Let me reclaim my time. Do they have
    the ability to say who is responsible right now? Could they say
    who is responsible, or would they say we don't know?
        Ambassador Ford. If they were here today, Congressman, they
    would say they don't know.
        Mr. Poe. They don't.
        Ambassador Ford. Because they have no mandate to label
    anyone responsible.
        Mr. Poe. So, if we gave them a mandate to say who is
    responsible, and they said Assad was responsible, then
    technically the U.N. could weigh in on this?
        Ambassador Ford. Correct.
        Mr. Poe. Okay.
        Ambassador Ford. And it may be that, ultimately, it'll be
    impossible to get the OPCW that mandate, Congressman, and so I
    think this is one of the things being discussed in New York is,
    is there another way to get an investigative team with that
    mandate.
        Mr. Poe. All right. Thank you, Ambassador. Reclaiming my
    time.
        Let's go back to Assad; removing Assad. I'm not saying we
    ought to assassinate him. Just the U.S. policy is not to get
    rid of him. But let's say he is gone tomorrow, he's out of
    town, he's gone. Would that result in chaos, turmoil, or
    tranquility in Syria, or pick a different word?
        Ambassador Ford. It could be either one. It is possible
    that his departure would facilitate getting to the national
    political negotiation that I talked about, because he has
    refused, he has refused to negotiate, and his instructions to
    his delegation in Geneva 15 months ago was not to negotiate.
    However, that will require some pressure from us on the Armed
    Opposition----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Ambassador.
        Ambassador Ford [continuing]. Be willing to negotiate.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Judge Poe.
        Mr. Poe. I'd like to ask one question.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Absolutely.
        Mr. Poe. Isn't ISIS just as bad as Assad if they were in
    control?
        Ambassador Ford. In some ways the Islamic State is even
    worse, but they will not be in control of Syria, even if Assad
    does fall.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you.
        Ambassador Ford. They will not----
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We'll turn to Mr. Sires of New
    Jersey.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here
    today. This is a very moving hearing but, you know, I'm so
    conflicted with some of these decisions that we have to make in
    the Congress.
        First of all, you know, the conflict in Syria has left us
    with three main groups, Assad's brutal force, ISIL, a fractured
    group consisting of some modern militia, some al-Qaeda
    affiliates. You know, I don't know where we could turn and not
    make the situation worse.
        I really don't think that there is a military solution to
    this. And I understand that instituting a no-fly zone may help,
    but I don't know if us getting involved would make it better. I
    mean, I think we screwed up Iraq. I mean, look at the situation
    in Iraq. And every time I go to these veterans' events and I
    see our young men missing a limb, missing legs, I mean, I
    really don't know I could ever vote to send troops in some of
    these places, because the rest of the Arab world is just
    sitting by and watching this go on. Where's the rest of the
    world? Why must we send our young people into this battle,
    spend our money, and at the end they hate us for it? So,
    where's the rest of the world? I mean, where is the rest of the
    Arab world?
        They are their children. I mean, the Turks just look around
    and see people getting killed. They don't care. They don't even
    let people in through their border. So, can anybody tell me how
    we're going to make this better without a political solution to
    this?
        Ambassador, you want to start? I mean, you could try.
        Ambassador Ford. I'd be delighted to. I'd be delighted to,
    Congressman.
        I agree with you, there is no military solution. There has
    to be a national political negotiation; otherwise, Syria will
    fragment into something like Somalia. But how do you get to the
    political solution? How do you get there?
        The only way is to put more military pressure on the side
    that won't negotiate, which is Assad. Just like Richard
    Holbrooke in the Balkans used limited judicious amounts of NATO
    air strikes to get Milosevic to go to the table at Dayton;
    something like that has to be done with Assad.
        Mr. Sires. But I think the situation is a little more
    complicated.
        Ambassador Ford. The Balkans were pretty complicated, too,
    Congressman. So, if I may continue, a no-fly zone, for example,
    it's not the only thing that would help with this, but a no-fly
    zone, for example, if properly negotiated out with regional
    countries and used as part of an effort, as part of an effort
    to get to the political negotiation could be very effective. It
    would both help save civilian lives, but it could be used as
    leverage to get Assad to the table, and to get the Armed
    Opposition to negotiate and engage seriously when they go to
    the table.
        Mr. Sires. Mr. Habib, you want to just--I know you----
        Mr. Habib. Thank you, sir.
        Well, first of all, I just want to say that the Syrian
    people did not ever ask for boots on the ground from the United
    States or from other countries. What we asked for does not put
    any of the American soldiers at risk; just provide protection
    for the Syrian people.
        Inaction from the international community will lead to more
    complexity, and it will cause more threats on the international
    security, in general. If Iran wins this war, this will not be
    in the interest of the United States or the international
    community. And if ISIS wins, or any radical group wins, of
    course, that will threaten the international security.
        What we ask for is to give a chance for the moderate
    opposition to be able to provide an alternative for the people
    inside Syria, and for the public in general.
        Mr. Sires. Okay, Dr. Tennari.
        Dr. Tennari. The biggest producer and biggest magnet of
    terrorism in Syria is Bashar al-Assad.
        Mr. Sires. Oh, I don't question----
        Dr. Tennari. Bashar al-Assad has also brought to Syria the
    gains of Hezbollah, the gains of Irani and Shiite extremist
    militias, and others that have come into our country from
    terrorist groups. And this is what also helped cause other
    groups that also came out, terrorist organizations that also
    came out in Syria.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. We'll let him finish and then move on.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. No, go ahead.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. He had something else to say.
        Dr. Tennari. The cost of any intervention for the United
    States back in 2011-2012 is obviously much less costly for the
    United States then. The current situation, the chaos that's
    there is only going to spread and become worse, and that's
    going to force the United States at some point to intervene at
    a much more--even more complex situation.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Sires.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. We will now go to Mr. Issa of California.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ambassador, let me couch this question without trying to
    seem overly glib. Looking at Syria right now, Bashar Assad is a
    failed leader, failed his people before the civil war,
    continues to fail to even respect human rights. We can all
    agree that that's the best you can say. But with about 28
    million Syrians, plus or minus, and about half of them already
    displaced either in the country or outside the country,
    correct, and then of the remaining call it 18 million or less
    that are theoretically still in their homes, a big chunk, let's
    call it 25 percent either support Bashar Assad, or at least
    docile in any opposition.
        Then you have another chunk of the country, more than half
    by some estimates, are in the hands of ISIS where the vast
    majority either are docile and just want to continue their
    lives or, in fact, support ISIS.
        In that environment, when we are both against Assad and
    against ISIS, what are our numbers? How many numbers can we
    actually say are people who are ready to engage in an active
    effort sufficient to displace both of these despicable groups?
        Ambassador Ford. It's important to understand here,
    Congressman, that this effort to unseat Assad has been going on
    4 years now, and is actually getting stronger, not weaker. So,
    you just look at the situation on the ground, and that the
    regime has lost a second Provincial capital.
        Mr. Issa. But they've lost it to ISIS.
        Ambassador Ford. No, they did not. They lost it to a group
    called Jaysh al Fateh, and to other sector armed groups
    fighting from the north and the south.
        Mr. Issa. Who coordinate----
        Ambassador Ford. They did not lose it to the Islamic State.
        Mr. Issa. But they coordinate their opposition by regions,
    the same as Hezbollah. Today, the Lebanese armed forces fights
    in one zone, Hezbollah fights in another zone, they deconflict
    their zones to the extent that they are keeping Lebanon outside
    of the direct war.
        The question I have for you is, what is our path to
    displace both of them, or are we really having this hearing to
    talk about the current use of chemical weapons, and atrocities
    by Assad while, in fact, the effort to displace him is really
    in name only. And the reality is, is that we are fighting
    against ISIS while claiming that we want regime change, and
    knowing full well that regime change today, if Assad were to
    fall, ISIS would dominate the political scene more in Syria
    than Hezbollah ever has in Lebanon.
        Ambassador Ford. Two comments on that, Congressman. Number
    one, the administration's priority clearly is Iraq, not Syria.
    And, clearly, even in Iraq it is to fight the Islamic State. To
    the extent the administration is engaged much on Syria right
    now, it's with our air campaign against the Islamic State, an
    air campaign which, as best I can tell, the criteria for
    victory are not clear, and the duration of the mission is very
    unclear. That's my first comment.
        Second, I disagree vehemently that were Assad to go, the
    Islamic State would dominate Syria. The total number of people
    who are fighting the Islamic State right now both in the regime
    and among moderates in the Free Syrian Army outnumbers the
    Islamic State. And it is important to note, Congressman, that
    although the Islamic State has been on attack for months up
    around Allepo, it is actually being pushed back. It is not
    advancing. Let me say that again. It is being pushed back. And
    those are not people who are getting any help from the United
    States. And the Islamic State has also suffered losses at the
    hands of Syrian Kurds, so I do not think the Islamic State
    would dominate Syria.
        Mr. Issa. Ambassador, my time is just about expired. I
    appreciate your opinion. The reality is, Hezbollah doesn't
    control the majority of Lebanon either, but they dominate the
    politics of Lebanon, undoubtedly.
        Do any of you see a political solution in Syria since the
    military solution seems to be a multi group, essentially
    becoming a civil war with multiple groups fighting multiple
    groups?
        Ambassador Ford. That's an excellent question.
        Mr. Issa. And that is for anyone on the panel. Do any of
    you see a political solution?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Just one to answer. His time is up. One.
        Mr. Issa. I'll take that as no. Thank you.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. And now we turn to
    Mr. Deutch, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Middle
    East and North Africa.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chairman. To our witnesses
    here today, thanks for your tireless humanitarian work, and for
    being here today to share some of the horrors that you've
    witnessed firsthand.
        The medical personnel and the humanitarian workers who are
    the first responders risk their lives in Syria every day
    running toward explosions instead of away from them, and they
    deserve our gratitude and support.
        Ambassador Ford, welcome back. Thank you for your years of
    service to this country.
        As we have heard already today, the Assad regime has
    continued its horrific use of chemical weapons in direct
    violation of the OPCW agreement; yet, the international
    community remains paralyzed with inaction. The fact that
    whether or not chlorine gas is a chemical weapon is even part
    of this conversation is baffling to me.
        When chlorine gas is put in a barrel bomb and dropped from
    the sky on civilians, then dropped again when rescue workers
    have reached the scene, it is a weapon of mass destruction. And
    the fact that the international bodies do not assign blame for
    these attacks by the Assad regime is a failure of the system.
        The regime is the only entity with air power, the only one
    capable of dropping barrel bombs, and at this point continued
    inaction by the international community is unacceptable.
        Just this morning there were reports of elephant rockets
    being dropped on civilians. These are bombs, if I understand it
    correctly, with rocket motors attached to them to cause greater
    destruction, despite making them far more inaccurate. And while
    I'm glad that Secretary Kerry acknowledged yesterday that these
    attacks by Assad cannot continue, I'm just not sure that simply
    asking the Russians to relay this message is enough.
        Russia can't continue to block action against the barbaric
    use of chemical weapons at the Security Council. This is horrid
    at this point, and we've been talking about it for a long time,
    but today's hearing is about the use of chemical weapons, and
    we have to be prepared to stand up and acknowledge it, and
    respond to it.
        Now, Dr. Tennari, chlorine gas is notorious for the
    psychological terror that its deployment, or threat of
    deployment, inflicts upon populations. And the Assad regime
    also possesses and uses weapons which are significantly more
    efficient at killing on a massive scale. Dr. Sparrow, you
    talked about this. Why do you think that the regime continues
    to use chlorine as a weapon in violation of law, and what
    affect does that have on the communities that are under siege?
        Dr. Sparrow. As I said--thank you.
        Mr. Deutch. Dr. Sparrow, can we have just Dr. Tennari
    answer first, and then I'll turn to you.
        Dr. Sparrow. Sorry.
        Mr. Deutch. That's okay. No, thank you.
        Dr. Tennari. The Assad regime uses chlorine gas
    specifically to displace people from their areas, specifically
    against the areas that are under Opposition control, so to help
    strike at the popular support of the Opposition. Assad's troops
    and his strategy, even whenever they come into a specific area,
    they always write down on the walls, ``Either Assad or no one
    else--either Assad or we burn down the whole country.'' And
    this is the strategy behind using chlorine barrel bombs, is
    that it's either be under Assad control or no one is there, and
    so he uses that to displace populations.
        Mr. Deutch. Dr. Sparrow. Thank you, Dr. Tennari.
        Dr. Sparrow. Together the barrel bombs and the chlorine are
    completely consistent with this very deliberate strategy of
    targeting civilians and hospitals. It is a classic strategy of
    war, as described.
        March 16th, the chlorine attacks recommenced; 28th of
    March, Idlib fell from the Government, the City of Idlib was
    taken by coordinated action by the Opposition. I was there. The
    very next day, the government retaliates by taking out the
    National Hospital in Idlib and the Red Crescent Hospital,
    including the children's ward in the National Hospital.
        It's a very swift retaliation. It drives people quickly as
    Tennari described, forces them to move, so attacking them
    together with destroying the infrastructure and creating the
    panic and the fear really puts people out of action very
    effectively. And this is a war of attrition. Two years ago
    Eastern Ghouta had a population of 1 million and several
    hundred doctors. Today, Ghouta has \1/5\ million and it has 50
    doctors left. In DC, you have about 600,000, and almost 7,000
    doctors. This is why it's not a political solution, but it is a
    mitigation of this misery and helps stop the escalation.
        Mr. Deutch. Dr. Sparrow, thank you. Madam Chairman, if our
    sensibilities are shocked by what we've heard today and what
    we've seen in these videos, then there is just no question that
    there is an obligation to respond in some way. And I appreciate
    very much the opportunity to have this hearing today to discuss
    this further, and I yield back my time.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Deutch. And now we
    turn to Mr. Donovan of New York.
        Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple
    of quick questions.
        First, Doctor, is air drops the only method that's
    effective for the use of this chlorine gas?
        Dr. Sparrow. Yes. Last year canisters of liquid gas just
    vaporized, this year improvised chlorine bombs, and it's much
    more effective. It's very difficult to deliver chlorine in this
    way from the ground.
        Mr. Donovan. Okay.
        Dr. Sparrow. It's not like sarin. So, yes, we are only
    seeing it in air drops.
        MR. Donovan. Ambassador, do the Syrians have the capability
    to manufacture helicopters themselves, or are outside forces
    supplying them with these vehicles to drop the chlorine?
        Ambassador Ford. The helicopters that the Syrian Government
    uses are Russian, and the spare parts are all Russian, too.
        Mr. Donovan. Okay. And my final question, if a no-fly zone
    was imposed, Ambassador, would we have to be the enforcer, the
    United States, or are there other countries in the region that
    would enforce the no-fly zone?
        Ambassador Ford. Countries in the region, Congressman, have
    been asking us to do a no-fly zone for a long time. They're
    already participating with us in air operations in Syria
    against the Islamic State, and I have no doubt that a number of
    those same countries would join us if we were to expand the
    mission to be a no-fly zone over specific designated areas in
    Syria. We would certainly have other countries join us.
        Mr. Donovan. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Donovan. Mr. Cicilline of
    Rhode Island.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you to our
    witnesses for being here, and thank you to the chairman and
    Ranking Member for convening this hearing.
        For a regime and a dictator prepared to engage in this kind
    of horrific and depraved slaughter of its own people, and
    particularly of children, and the destruction of hospitals and
    health care facilities, the significance of removing the other
    chemical weapons, mustard gas and sarin, I think is
    significant. One can only begin to imagine what Assad or the
    regime would be capable of if they had access to those weapons.
        But with respect to our response to these chemical weapons,
    it seems as if, Ambassador Ford, you're suggesting that some
    military action will create some conditions for a political
    solution, that military solution is not--and I think Dr.
    Sparrow makes the same recommendation. And in your written
    testimony you speak about the cruel irony of the denial of
    chlorine and what it has caused in neighborhoods in Syria, and
    really serious, grave consequences of hepatitis, typhoid, polio
    outbreaks, and very, very serious diseases. And now chlorine is
    being used and dispensed in the cruelest way, and the most
    devastating way. And the cruel irony of this is almost hard to
    imagine.
        But I want to just press you on the solution. Dr. Sparrow
    says a no-fly zone in civilian areas that would protect,
    obviously, or prevent the bombing, use of barrel bombs that
    dispenses chlorine. And she also concludes in her written
    testimony that there is strong reason to believe that Assad's
    barrel bombing of civilians would quickly stop if a credible
    threat of military retaliation were made. And that this kind of
    a no-fly zone in this limited way is not militarily
    complicated, but a matter of political will. So, I'd like,
    Ambassador Ford, for you to comment on that. Do you agree with
    that assessment that it should be a no-fly zone, it should be
    narrowly construed, and that it's not militarily complicated,
    it's a matter of political will, and that it will likely cause
    Assad and the Assad regime to stop the use of chemical weapons?
    Because it was very persuasive to me, I should say.
        Ambassador Ford. Congressman, first of all, I'd just like
    to say I spent 5 years in Iraq trying to help stand up an Iraqi
    Government so we could get our forces out, so I don't take
    lightly asking for the deployment of American forces or an
    expansion of an existing mission that we already have in Syria.
    But militarily, it's doable.
        I think a different question is how long would it go on? It
    went on 12 years in Iraq. We had a no-fly zone over Iraq for 12
    years. So, the answer to that is, I can't give you a specific
    time mission, and that makes me uncomfortable. But I can only
    say that it will help if done properly, and if negotiated
    properly with the regional states, and the Syrian Opposition,
    it could help get us over the hump and to a negotiating table
    where we can get, finally, a national political settlement.
    Right now, we are going nowhere, nowhere toward a national
    political settlement. In fact, the opposite, the country is
    fragmenting, and that will enable the Islamic State and the al-
    Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra to have areas they control out into
    the medium and long term, Congressman.
        Mr. Cicilline. Ambassador, you sounded as if you were
    trying to make another point, and there wasn't enough time when
    one of my colleagues was questioning you. You said some
    pressure from us to negotiate, and ISIS will not be in charge
    of Syria. Would you speak a little more about that?
        Ambassador Ford. Certainly. The Islamic State is not the
    majority of the Syrian Opposition. It is one element fighting
    Assad, and sometimes it even cooperates with Assad in a very
    byzantine way. Let's not forget that before Islam, the
    Byzantines controlled Syria, so they carried over some of the
    tricky politics.
        Were Assad to go tomorrow or the next day, there would be a
    competition for power in Damascus and in all parts of Syria,
    and nowhere has the Islamic State ever prevailed over the more
    moderate elements of the Opposition, not in Allepo, not with
    the Syrian Kurds, if you've been reading the news about the
    gains that the Syrian Kurds have made, and down in the south,
    as well. In all of those places, the Islamic State's attacks
    have been blunted.
        The real progress the Islamic State has made to the extent
    it's made progress in Syria, is in places where it was fighting
    the regime, like Palmyra.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I thank you again, Madam Chair,
    and I associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from
    Florida, Congressman Deutch, that in the face of this evidence,
    that we have a responsibility to do something, and the world is
    watching. And I thank, again, the witnesses for being here to
    share their testimony. With that, I yield back.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Mr. Duncan of South
    Carolina.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thought the
    gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch's comments were apropos,
    too.
        They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, a video
    is worth a billion words, in my opinion. That video that you
    showed this morning was very, very compelling. It was moving to
    me emotionally. It needs to be shown all across America.
        Delving into this no-fly zone idea, which I am apt to
    support based on testimony today, and the comments from my
    colleagues, and the questions they asked. But delving into it,
    I realized that from 1992 to 1999, that DOD estimated that the
    U.S. and its allies flew over 200,000 sorties in Iraq. They
    were operating under what they believed to be a U.N. Security
    Council Resolution 688, but Secretary General Ghali said that
    the no-fly zone was illegal under 688. So, I ask, Ambassador,
    is there a Security Council resolution now for Syria that would
    cover a no-fly zone?
        Ambassador Ford. I think that's one of the difficulties,
    Congressman. I do not believe there is a Security Council
    resolution.
        Mr. Duncan. Would you agree with me that Russia would
    probably, being the benefactor of Assad, probably veto any
    Security Council resolution for a no-fly zone?
        Ambassador Ford. They have indicated that consistently.
        Mr. Duncan. Yes, that's speculation, and so I think they
    would, as well. So, how do we operate a no-fly zone legally in
    international law getting the participation of the U.N.
    Security Council?
        Ambassador Ford. The argument is going to have to be made,
    Congressman, that this falls under the acknowledged
    responsibility to protect, which as a principle has been
    acknowledged by the United Nations, but has not been applied in
    this way. The irony of this is that the international law
    strictly interpreted actually gives Assad full reign to kill
    like this; even though he's committing war crimes in the
    process.
        Mr. Duncan. That's amazing.
        Ambassador Ford. Yes, it is. I must say, I was surprised
    when I understood this myself.
        Mr. Duncan. Thanks for sharing that. We've operated in
    defiance of international or U.N. Security Council resolutions
    in the past, and so what are the practical implications for
    creating a no-fly zone in your opinion?
        Ambassador Ford. I think it has to be understood, not just
    as a way to protect Syrian civilians, as laudable and as
    important as that is, but because it's a major commitment,
    and----
        Mr. Duncan. From regional allies, I guess, is what you're
    saying?
        Ambassador Ford. That it has to be used also as a tool to
    get to a political settlement in Syria so that it doesn't last
    12 years like the one in Iraq did. And so we will have to
    negotiate the terms of it with regional states that are also
    supporting the Opposition so that they back a political
    settlement, and with the Syrian Opposition so that it, too,
    will negotiate seriously. And then we have to turn to the
    Russians and say this is not to overthrow Assad, this is to get
    to the negotiating table, and to stop the murder of civilians.
        Mr. Duncan. You know, in Iraq with the no-fly zones, we
    were basically stopping the Saddam Hussein regime from flying
    in two regions. The dynamics in Syria are much greater because
    we do have the Assad regime attacking its own citizens. There's
    no doubt in my mind about who's responsible, but we also have
    ISIS, and we have a lot of other factions that are in-fighting,
    but also fighting Assad, so the dynamics are completely
    different.
        I guess most of us would be concerned that a no-fly zone
    would possibly lead to an escalation of U.S. involvement in
    Syria because of the different factions. You know, you have
    ISIS take a manpad acquired from Lybia, and shoot down an
    American F-18. That's an escalation. And the rules of
    engagement currently against ISIS and Iraq keeps--there are
    many sorties flown every day that not a single bomb is loose
    because of the rules of engagement and waiting for clearance
    from some intelligence organization and up the chain of
    command, and so I'm really concerned about how this whole no-
    fly zone would actually operate. I think there's a lot of
    unanswered questions. But don't let that concern give you any
    doubt about my commitment to try to make this work for a no-fly
    zone, because I do see how it would help the Syrian people.
    Yes, sir?
        Ambassador Ford. One comment, Congressman. Having worked
    with our military in Iraq for almost 5 years, I have huge
    respect for what they do, and the risks that they take. They're
    already at risk of a surface-to-air missile hitting one of our
    pilots in an operation against the Islamic State. That risk
    already exists, and in fact it's been going on now for 9
    months.
        Mr. Duncan. In Western Iraq or in Syria?
        Ambassador Ford. No, in Syria.
        Mr. Duncan. Okay.
        Ambassador Ford. We are bombing in Syria regularly. What
    concerns me is that what we have now does not protect
    civilians, and it's a military mission of unlimited duration.
    Nobody can tell us when it's going to end. It does not help get
    to a settlement of the Syria crisis. It's just out there
    hitting the Islamic State, but it doesn't lead to anything to
    resolve the fundamental conflict that is helping Islamic State
    recruit.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Ambassador. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Keating of
    Massachusetts.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I'd suggest in response to that question, perhaps there's
    other reasons we're targeting in Syria for other groups working
    there, as well, so there's a reason. But I'm going to ask you
    to do something difficult. I'm going to ask you to try and get
    in the head of President Putin for a second, because to me, the
    way I view the situation, short term certainly we've discussed
    what he's done in the Security Council and things, but in the
    long term, Assad being there is not in Russia's self-interest.
    They've had a natural relationship with Syria, and his
    continuation, you know, as a leader there will hurt them, you
    know, in the short run because it will endanger the ability to
    go on with the administration after he leaves. And I do think
    he's in a more precarious situation than he was before. I do
    think he--one way or another, he'll be leaving there before
    long.
        What can Russia do in that instance, even behind the
    scenes, to assist in his removal? What are their options should
    they choose to do so, because I think they have self-interest
    at stake here in removing him, or having him go? Ambassador, I
    guess you're the best person in this regard.
        Ambassador Ford. Well, I think the Russian President views
    Syria as an ally, and so they obviously have interests and we
    have to understand that. I think in any kind of action where we
    increase assistance to the Syrian Armed Opposition to help stop
    these air attacks, or we undertake ourselves as part of a
    coalition direct military action, I think it will be important
    to reach out to the Russians. I think it would be very useful
    in terms of getting to the political negotiation I was talking
    about, Congressman, to have some kind of a regional contact
    group, and have that formalized so that we're in a room talking
    with the Russians, and also with Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. And
    I'm going to say it, and Iran, because all of those countries
    are going to have to work together to help resolve the Syrian
    crisis. They all have their clients in this conflict. So, the
    things that Russia could do, Congressman, would be at the
    simplest level to stop sending spare parts to these helicopters
    and these aircraft. That would be the simplest thing, and they
    can do that quietly. They don't need to make any announcements.
    They need not lose face in doing that. It's simply a way of
    putting pressure on the regime to stop using these attacks
    against civilians.
        They could limit financing. They could limit other arms
    shipments. They send a lot of arms into Syria. The Syrian Army
    is basically equipped by the Russians, and they can also
    quietly behind the scenes press the regime to go to the
    negotiating table, which also is important.
        Mr. Keating. Well, do you agree with the premise that, at
    least the way I view it, that Assad is definitely--his presence
    there is not in Russia's long term interest in the region
    there? And any one of the other witnesses that might want to
    comment on that, I'd welcome that testimony.
        Dr. Sparrow. May I just quickly say that Russia and Putin
    also recognize that chemical weapons used against civilians
    plumb the depths, plumb new depths of inhumanity, and it's
    actually easier to get Russia to agree to a no-fly zone that
    protects civilians, as it also is with the Iraqi Prime
    Minister, with whom I've also had this conversation. We can get
    consensus around stopping the civilian slaughter which then
    helps those who are currently even supporting the Assad regime
    to achieve consensus around this no-fly zone and lead toward a
    political solution. It's helpful for everybody.
        Mr. Keating. Okay. Any of the other witnesses wish to
    comment on Russia's self-interest here in having Assad gone?
        Dr. Tennari. The long term interest of Russia would be in
    having a decent relationship with the Syrian people, and the
    Syrian people have made the decision that they no longer want
    to be ruled by Bashar al-Assad.
        The presence of Assad in power has caused enormous chaos,
    and this chaos is added, and it's expanded on a daily basis.
    Getting Assad away from the front will open the road to a
    political solution. It will open the door for the Syrians to
    sit at the negotiation table and find a political solution to
    this crisis.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Keating. Dr.
    Yoho of Florida.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate everybody
    being here today.
        I would like to just mention that we are introducing a
    resolution condemning the use of toxic chemicals as weapons in
    the Syrian Arab Republic, including chlorine substances along
    with a strong recommendation to the international community
    requesting no-fly zones, including helicopters. This has gone
    on way too long. It's something that needs to stop, and I'm
    kind of outraged that the world community and the U.N. Security
    Council has not acted on this sooner. I mean, how many times do
    we have to repeat history with atrocity, after atrocity, after
    atrocity. This is the 21st century. We need to tighten up as a
    population or people.
        Ambassador Ford, I want to direct--I've just got a comment
    or a question. Back in March, the end of March 2011, you stated
    that Assad is no Gaddafi. There is little likelihood of mass
    atrocities. The Syrian regime will answer challenges
    aggressively, but will try to minimize the use of lethal force.
    How did we miss that so wrongly?
        Ambassador Ford. At the time, Congressman, in my
    discussions with the Syrian officials, including at the
    Presidency, including top advisors to Assad, they were telling
    me that they wanted a dialogue, and they made a few tentative
    steps toward a dialogue. They did release several prominent
    political prisoners, including Haitham al-Malah, and Riad Seif
    who had been imprisoned for years. It was my mistake of
    judgment, but I want you to understand that context.
        Mr. Yoho. All right. We were talking of Libya at the time
    going in, doing a no-fly zone. And I hear a lot of no-fly
    zones, you know, we should do a no-fly zone. I just want to
    remind everybody a no-fly zone, number one, if we do that, is
    an act of war. We're attacking a sovereign nation that has not
    attacked us. They are not a direct threat to the United States
    of America. It is an act of war. A no-fly zone does not prevent
    helicopters from flying. A no-fly zone didn't prevent Saddam
    Hussein from slaughtering his own people when we had a no-fly
    zone there. A no-fly zone is not a solution, it's a military
    operation. Yes, it can be used to put more pressure on the
    Assad regime, but it is not an answer to the problem.
        We did that in Libya, and Senator Cornyn out of Texas said
    the mission in Libya was unclear, and it was an international
    no-fly zone. And I think there was around 18 to 20 countries,
    and when it came time to participate, half of those countries
    didn't show up. The Americans had to do most of the lifting. We
    had 19 warships in there, 18,000 troops committed. The first 11
    days cost $550 million, and then $40 million a month after
    that. And money is not the issue here. We're talking about
    human life, and the dignity of life, and stability in that
    area. But NATO was unable to finish the job on its own, and
    there was no plan post-Gaddafi. And now Libya is becoming the
    hotbed for ISIS. It's becoming the home base for ISIS.
        What are we doing to prevent a repeat of that? If we were
    to do this and Assad falls, what is going to be replaced there,
    and is it going to be worse, because we saw al-Qaeda fall. We
    saw it, you know, almost beat down, and then out of that came
    ISIS. It's al-Qaeda Part 2. I'm not ready for Part 3.
    Ambassador Ford, if you'd comment on that.
        Ambassador Ford. You raise valid questions. My response to
    that is that after Gaddafi fell, there was not a strong plan in
    place for the transition government in Libya to establish a
    monopoly of force. The militias were not disarmed.
        Whatever is negotiated for Syria, and I emphasize the word
    ``negotiation,'' I do not think it is possible to have a
    military solution in Syria, certainly not any time soon. Those
    negotiations between the government and the Syrian Opposition
    must include negotiations about how security will be handled,
    and how the government, ultimately, will have the monopoly of
    force, because that government will have to fight the
    extremists of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. And that will
    have to be one of the things that comes out of the negotiation.
        Mr. Yoho. Well, I would hope before we go into a no-fly
    zone we have a clear, concise strategy of what happens post-
    Assad? What happens? Who's going to be there? Who's going to be
    standing up protecting the Syrian people, who in Syria is going
    to do that, and where is that support going to come from on an
    international basis? And you talked about Russia, you know,
    they could stop sending parts. My experience and what I found
    out especially with the meeting today is Russia will not
    support Assad, because Assad is suppressing his people. And
    Putin's number one fear is for an uprising in a zone area with
    people, and you could see that happening in Ukraine with the
    beginning of the uprising there. And Putin is deathly afraid of
    that, so if he's supporting Assad, his people in Russia are
    saying you know what, we don't want to go against this guy. And
    until the world community comes together, until America leads,
    and we have lost our way when we draw red lines and we back
    off, when we ask for regime change and we back off, and we need
    to say what we mean, and mean what we say, and we need to back
    that up with action. And we need to have the courage, and we
    need to have the big stick; but, more importantly, people need
    to know we're going to use that. And I hope in the future we
    progress down those avenues. Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. Thank you, Dr. Yoho.
    Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank the witnesses
    and the other folks for being here.
        I just want to start out with a statement regarding one of
    my colleagues from the other side that said that we screwed up
    Iraq. It is this member's opinion that there are a few folks in
    this town that screwed up Iraq, but it certainly wasn't the
    military, and it wasn't the Congress, either. Iraq was a stable
    place not too long ago, and that's at the feet of a couple of
    individuals in this town, in my opinion.
        With that having been said, Ambassador Ford, you stated
    earlier today that the events in Syria are a national security
    issue, and I tend to agree with you, but we don't have this
    Chapter 7 situation resolved. And so, I think you're advocating
    for it, so I just want to be clear and have your remarks
    clarified, that in spite of a lack of Chapter 7 authority, that
    we should--the United States should take some action. Is that--
    some action. Right?
        Ambassador Ford. Yes. I don't think we have to have a no-
    fly zone. I certainly see advantages to a no-fly zone, but if
    that's just too big a stretch, if that's just too difficult in
    Washington to do, then at least I would like to see us help the
    Syrian Armed Opposition deter and interdict these attacks. And
    whether that be by giving them standoff mortars and rockets so
    they can hit the airfields from which the helicopters take off,
    whether that be radar so they can detect----
        Mr. Perry. So, you're not wed to the no-fly zone.
        Ambassador Ford. No.
        Mr. Perry. But that is a----
        Ambassador Ford. I see advantages to it, but I know there's
    a lot of opposition in Washington.
        Mr. Perry. Let me ask you this. The Syrian Government has
    not been officially determined responsible for the chlorine gas
    attacks, and that's kind of the impetus for much of this
    discussion, right, the weapons of mass destruction, the
    chemical weapons, weaponized chlorine.
        What are we doing? What's the administration, what's the
    United States doing about pursuing a unilateral strategy to
    determine official responsibility? Are we doing anything?
    Should we be doing anything? Because we can't get it through
    the U.N., right? Russia is going to stand in the way. So, if
    that's the case, and we're left with arming some faction in
    Syria, or a no-fly zone, would it be smart and would it be
    possible to pursue a way to degrade Assad's use of his air
    force via lack of parts and maintenance provisions from Russia?
    But, you know, we've got to get to that. And it seems to me in
    this morass of very difficult circumstances, that that is
    something that should and could be pursued, and it gets us to
    where we want to be without putting lives in peril of the
    United States, and everything else, and jeopardy that goes with
    that.
        Ambassador Ford. If I understand the administration's
    policy, Congressman, they are trying to work this now in New
    York and trying to get Russian buy-in for an investigative team
    of some kind to go and determine responsibility. I think the
    negotiations with the Russians would be somewhat easier if the
    Russians understood that failing U.N. Security Council
    agreement, the United States is prepared to work with a
    coalition of like-minded countries to act itself; whether that
    be in terms of a no-fly zone, or if that's too much heavy
    lifting, then at least to provide people, Syrians on the ground
    the ability to interdict those air strikes.
        Mr. Perry. Do you know how long that process has been going
    on? I think if I'm Russia, if I'm Putin, I want to play out the
    clock. I want Assad to stay there as long as he can. If he's
    imperiled a little bit or a lot, so what? I keep my Navy base
    there, and everybody's happy. Right?
        Ambassador Ford. I think this has been in play for at least
    2 months now, and I think it goes faster if the Russians
    understand that we ourselves are prepared to operate with a
    small coalition of like-minded countries----
        Mr. Perry. Can you tell me who the small coalition of the
    like-minded would be?
        Ambassador Ford. Oh, it would include Turkey, Jordan, Saudi
    Arabia, Qatar, France, probably the British, at least those,
    and I would think----
        Mr. Perry. That would be willing to work in a no-fly zone
    capacity?
        Ambassador Ford. Yes.
        Mr. Perry. Those--who would run such a thing?
        Ambassador Ford. Oh, I would think everyone would look to
    the United States to do that. Our military command and control
    capabilities far exceed those of any of the countries I
    mentioned.
        Mr. Perry. What do we do about the Russian anti-aircraft
    weapons that were shipped to Syria?
        Ambassador Ford. Well, we already have that problem,
    because we're already flying combat missions over Syria
    regularly. So, I think what we want to do is tell the
    Russians--if we're going to do this kind of military action, we
    want to tell the Russians that the point is both to stop the
    attacks, and to get to the negotiating table, and to re-
    energize the Russians to help us get there.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, and I want to thank
    all of the panelists for excellent testimony on this crucial
    humanitarian crisis that engulfs us everyday. We hope we take
    action soon.
        And with that, the committee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                       Material Submitted for the Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Material submitted for the record by Mohamed Tennari, M.D., Idlib
                  coordinator, Syrian-American Medical Society

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Material submitted for the record by Mr. Farouq Habib, Syria program
                             manager, Mayday Rescue

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Material submitted for the record by Annie Sparrow, M.B.B.S., deputy
     director human rights program, Assistant Professor of Global Health,
                    Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]