[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 117 (Monday, September 9, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6289-S6290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SYRIA
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my friend the
distinguished Senator from Ohio for including me in his unanimous
consent request. I will briefly speak about an amendment.
We all understand that the issue is going to come before this body to
send activity into Syria. I am very much opposed to any kind of force
in Syria, but if it happens, we want to be sure there is some
protection there. So I have an amendment that even if my amendment
passes, I will still oppose the effort of this President to send
activity into Syria, and I believe it would precipitate a war.
My amendment is very simple. If the President takes military action
against Syria, sequestration of our Armed Forces would be delayed for 1
year. We are talking about the fiscal year where we would take another
$52 billion out of our military.
What Asad has done and continues to do is reprehensible, but the
United States can't afford another war given the current state of our
military. The threats from Syria and the Middle East are not emerging
threats. These threats have been around for decades. We knew they were
there. There is nothing new about them. Yet the readiness capabilities
of our military continue to be decimated by drastic budget cuts.
Sixteen Air Force combat flying squadrons have been grounded. We
finally, after 3 months, put them back in the air again, and right now
we know it costs more to get them back in a state of readiness than the
money we saved from grounding them for 3 months. Our naval fleet has
been reduced to historically low levels, the end strength of our ground
forces has been cut by more than 100,000 personnel, and hundreds of
thousands of DOD civilian employees have been furloughed. Just in my
State of Oklahoma, in one of my installations, 14,000 civilian
employees have been furloughed.
We can't have it both ways--continuing to cut the funding of our
military while still expecting to meet our national security
requirements. As military readiness and capabilities decline, we accept
greater risk, and, as I have always said, risk equals lives. Every time
we have a hearing, we have our combatant commanders come in and talk
about the risks. Risk means lives. As I have always said, risk equals
lives, and allowing these cuts to continue while proposing to send our
forces into harm's way is immoral and reprehensible.
Over the last week I have heard a lot from the President and his
administration about how any action in Syria will be limited. I suggest
there is no such thing as limited war. Once we decide to strike, we
can't predict where it will end or how the situation might escalate.
Let's not forget that we have troops currently on the ground in Jordan
and Turkey, marines guarding our Embassies, and sailors and airmen
stationed around the region. We have already heard that Iran is
ordering its terrorist proxies to retaliate by attacking U.S. interests
in the region, including our Embassy in Iraq. The State Department has
ordered nonessential personnel to evacuate our Embassy in Lebanon. The
threats to our forces are real.
I wish to read for my colleagues excerpts from a letter that was
written by two ladies, Rebekah Sanderlin and Molly Blake. These are
spouses of two of our servicemen. They are responding--much more
eloquently than I could ever hope to--to the immense hardship our
military is enduring under sequestration and to the misguided belief
that a military strike on Syria can be done in isolation--that it won't
affect our troops and their families.
I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
An Open Letter to CNN Reporter Barbara Starr
[From The Huffington Post, posted Sept. 4, 2013]
Dear Ms. Starr: We are writing to let you in on a secret.
It's a big one--so get to a fresh page in your reporter
notebook and have your pen poised and ready.
You told your viewers last Thursday that there was ``no
question'' that the military could afford to go into Syria
and that you ``don't think it's really going to affect
military families at all.''
Here's some inside information for you: There is no such
thing as a person-less war. Our military cannot afford for
Americans to forget that wars and battles and military
strikes are fought by troops, that troops are people, and
that those people have families.
In our military communities this summer we couldn't even
afford to pay federal employees for a five-day work week.
Military families can't get doctors' appointments and can't
get the counseling services needed to grapple with the
problems we already have, problems largely created by almost
12 years of war. And while Congress was busy sending a
warning letter to the president to ensure they get to sign
off on whether or not we go to war, they managed to ignore
military families when the sequester hit. Today clinic hours
are being slashed--along with pretty much every other service
military families need. Walking around our communities
lately, it doesn't look like we can afford much of anything--
and certainly not a whole new war.
And that's just taking `afford' literally.
Figuratively, the picture is even grimmer. An entire
generation of military kids have grown up with a parent they
know primarily through Skype. Couples are trying to piece
together marriages that have been badly fractured by more
years spent apart than together. We grew hopeful that better
days were coming as we watched the end of the Iraq war, and
we're thrilled that the end of our involvement in Afghanistan
is nigh, and yet now all of cable news is breathless and
giddy with talk of war in Syria.
You boast, in your bio, that you have exclusive access to
Lt. Gen. Russel Honore and you've interviewed several
secretaries of defense and other important people at the CIA.
You may very well have Sec. Hagel on speed dial--but that
doesn't give you the right to toss around your thoughts on
how military families may or may not be affected by military
action. Not until you've stood in our shoes for longer than a
three-minute live shot.
You see, Barbara, there's no such thing as `no boots on the
ground.' We in the military community sigh and shake our
heads when we hear talk like that from the people on TV.
Perhaps you consider a relatively small number of troops to
be the same as zero--but we don't. We know that each of those
service members is somebody's somebody.
As journalists, we like to show both sides of the story. So
we would like to also voice our thanks. For your careless
words have aimed a giant floodlight on the military-civilian
divide. Blue Star Families Director of Research and Policy,
Vivian Greentree said it best:
[[Page S6290]]
We hear a sense of angst in our membership and throughout
the military community. How can we be in the middle of the
fall out of sequestration--furloughs, program cuts, loss of
mission readiness--we have families who can't get medical
appointments. They are all wondering how they will manage if
the situation in Syria continues to escalate. They wonder how
will it affect them. Not, if it will affect them. But, how.
``That statement, in all its small-minded glory, captures
the civilian-military divide more clearly than any survey
ever could.''
And maybe someday we will be able to fight whole wars
without using a single human . . . And Rosie the Robot will
clean our kitchens while we tackle our morning commutes in
flying cars. But today, in 2013, we can't have a `surgical
strike' without someone saying where to drop the bombs or
where to aim those missiles. And those planes that drop the
bombs? The destroyers that carry the missiles? They have
pilots, captains and crews. All humans. Even the ``unmanned''
drones have human pilots, and the psychological wear and tear
on them is staggering. Planes take off from airfields in
foreign lands or from aircraft carriers, both of which are
staffed by thousands of American somebodies, just like those
destroyer ships. At every turn in a military operation you
will find people. Intel analysts, linguists, flight crews,
and cooks. Even war plans, regardless of whether they were,
as you stated, ``on deployment anyway'' rely on thousands of
people who will be pulled to a new duty, which causes
reshuffling far and wide in the military community.
And this, most definitely, affects military families.
The big question is, as you said, ``will it work?'' and, as
we learned from the most recent wars, it bears recalling that
things don't always go as planned. But that's not the only
question. Do not kid yourself, Barbara, and don't you dare
kid the viewers who trust your reporting.
Sincerely,
Rebekah Sanderlin and Molly Blake,
Military Spouses.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to quote from the letter I just
submitted for the Record, and I ask my colleagues to listen to the
quote. These are two ladies who are spouses of servicemen. They said:
There is no such thing as a person-less war. Our military
cannot afford for Americans to forget that wars and battles
and military strikes are fought by troops, that troops are
people, and that those people have families. In our military
communities this summer we couldn't even afford to pay
Federal employees for a five-day work week. Military families
can't get doctors' appointments and can't get counseling
services needed to grapple with the problems we already have,
problems largely created by almost 12 years of war. Today
clinic hours are being slashed--along with pretty much every
other service military families need. Walking around our
communities lately, it doesn't look like we can afford much
of anything--and certainly not a whole new war.
I am still quoting now these wives of our military men:
And maybe someday we will be able to fight whole wars
without using a single human, but today, in 2013, we can't
have a surgical strike without someone saying where to drop
the bombs or where to aim those missiles. And those planes
that drop the bombs? The destroyers that carry the missiles?
They have pilots, captains, and crews. All humans. Even the
``unmanned'' drones have human pilots, and the psychological
wear and tear on them is staggering. Planes take off from
airfields in foreign lands and from aircraft carriers, both
of which are staffed by thousands of American somebodies,
just like those destroyer ships. At every turn in a military
operation you will find people. Intel analysts, linguists,
flight crews, and cooks. Even war plans . . . rely on
thousands of people who will be pulled to a new duty, which
causes reshuffling far and wide in the military community.
And this, most definitely, affects our military families.
Again, that is a quote from two of the wives of our current
servicemen. I hope all of my colleagues will read this letter. I hope
they understand that the decisions we make this week about whether to
go to war in Syria have a human dimension.
If we expect the brave men and women in our military to go to foreign
lands and risk their lives on our behalf, we have a moral obligation to
ensure that they and their families have the support and the resources
that are required. Sequestration has already inflicted severe damage on
our military, and we are now only a couple of weeks from another $52
billion being slashed from an already devastated military budget.
I have been clear that I don't support the President's call for
military action in Syria. He still hasn't presented Congress and the
American people with a plan for what he wants to accomplish, how he
intends to accomplish it, or how he intends to pay for it. Will the
President pay for this operation with more furloughs and by grounding
more squadrons again? The CNO has already come forward and stated that
if operations against Syria extend into October, he won't be able to
afford it and will likely require supplemental funding from Congress.
Furthermore, the President hasn't told us how a strike in Syria fits
into a broader strategy for the Middle East. What we decide to do is
not just about Syria. It is bigger than that. This is about the growing
threat from Iran, stability in the Middle East, and our commitment to
Israel and allies and our ability to respond to other contingencies
that are there.
I recall knowing what was going to happen. This is 4\1/2\ years ago,
back when President Obama was first elected, his first election. I knew
that when he came out with his first budget, he was going to do
something devastating to the military. So I put myself into
Afghanistan, knowing, with the tanks going back and forth, that I would
be able to get the interest and the attention of the American people,
and it worked. So in that very first budget 4\1/2\ years ago, he did
away with the early fifth-generation bomber then, the F-22; did away
with our future combat system--the first ground capability increase in
about 50 years; did away with our lift capacity, the C-17. Then, the
worst thing, which I hope doesn't turn out to create the worst problem
for America, he did away with the ground-based operation in Poland.
That was just the first budget. That was 4\1/2\ years ago. Since that
time, in his extended budget, he has taken $487 billion out of the
military, and with sequestration it will be another $\1/2\ trillion.
This just can't happen.
It is not just me who is saying this. People would expect it more
from me. I am the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services
Committee. I have gone there and worked with these guys and noticed the
problems they have. I would suggest that not just me but Admiral
Winnefeld, who is the second highest military guy, the Vice Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said:
There could be, for the first time in my career-- An
admiral speaking now, the second highest person in our
military--
instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and
we will have to say we cannot.
And then we go to the very top person, General Dempsey, the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said, ``Our military force is so
degraded, so unready, it would be immoral to use force.''
I only say this because we are going to be facing this, and I would
be opposed to this even with my amendment to postpone the sequestration
of the military for 1 year. However, if that passes, I will still
oppose this taking place. I don't think many people in America realize
what has happened to our military under the Obama administration.
Well, I have just stated what has happened. This is certainly not a
time when we would use force in Syria. Keep in mind that General
Dempsey said it would be immoral to use force, we are so degraded, and
that is exactly what we will be voting on in the next couple of days.
With that, I yield the floor.
____________________