[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5467-H5470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
POTENTIAL U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN SYRIA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Fortenberry) for 30 minutes.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinarily busy week in
Washington as we have all returned from a district work period. There
are many issues to discuss, including how we're going to fund the
Federal budget, get the fiscal house in order, potentially have the
right type of tax reform, and deal with a whole host of other issues,
but I felt like it would be very inadequate if the evening went by but
did not delve into a little bit deeper of a discussion as to the nature
of the Syrian conflict and the potential for United States military
involvement.
Mr. Speaker, I wrote my constituents last week as they expressed
tremendous concern about the potential for U.S. entanglement in the
situation in Syria. In fact, it's overwhelming the number of people who
have shared deep, heartfelt concerns. It is overwhelming. I'm hearing
that from my colleagues, as well.
This is not some sort of populous reaction to the elites of this
institution in government. It is an intuition of the American people
who are suggesting to us in leadership that we have poured ourselves
out as a country, sacrificed tremendously, extraordinarily, to give
other people a chance for stability, for human rights, for the right
forms of development, for political outcomes that uphold just governing
structures.
Where have we gotten for our investment? Basically since World War
II, the United States has been cast into the role of the superpower
being the proprietor of international stability and we've accepted that
arrangement, but there are tremendous pressures upon us as we continue
to move forward in the 21st century as we've empowered other people and
other economies through appropriate development to take
responsibilities for themselves.
The United States has not always done this perfectly, but we've
fought multiple wars and we've engaged in many areas of the world in
order to try to give other people a chance and to stop aggressive
ideologies that are inconsistent with basic and fundamental human
rights. I've responded to the people of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I wanted
to share that with you this evening:
Life in Syria today is, as the philosopher Thomas Hobbes once wrote,
``nasty, brutish, and short.'' An ongoing civil war ravishes the
country. The oppressive regime of President Bashar al-Assad wages
battle against a nebulous, undefined mix of rebels, who have regularly
employed the same brutal violence that the government has. The result
is that there are more than 100,000 persons dead, including many
innocent civilians--mothers, fathers, and children.
In response to the suspected use of chemical weapons by Assad,
President Obama is now advocating U.S. military intervention, although,
of course, the situation is now fluid. In the past, he has stated that
the use of chemical weapons is a ``red line'' that Assad could not
cross without a serious rethinking of American involvement in the
conflict, which to this point has included a significant amount of
humanitarian aid--and properly so--targeted to those caught in the
middle of this violence. The President, to his credit, has rightly
asked for a vote of Congress prior to taking military action, and some
in Congress are signaling their support.
In recent days, however, I have clearly stated my opposition to this
idea. I oppose this action of unilateral military strikes. The United
States should not bomb Syria in the name of stopping violence in Syria.
While quick, unilateral military strikes might satisfy the President's
``red line'' rhetoric, the collateral damage and further risk of
destabilization is very high.
{time} 1830
Now, as Congress has returned to Washington this week, there are hard
questions that are in the process of being asked: What will be the
consequences of this bombing? Who's on the other side of this? And how
much do we really know of this rebel movement that we will be
implicitly aiding if we attack Assad's government? What happens
following the military strike? Why not expend the energy of this debate
over military involvement on solidifying international outrage and
holding particularly Russia, a longtime ally of Syria who's entangled
in this situation, holding them accountable?
The international community must work together creatively to stop the
savagery of Assad, but it cannot hide behind the United States military
might. No longer can it be assumed that the United States is
responsible for fixing all aspects of global conflicts, and no longer
should the United States accept that framework. For the sake of global
stability, a new construct must instead take its place, one in which
the responsible Nations of the world are serious about their own
defense and stabilization of conflicts within their regions.
In light of the increasing brutality in Syria, the United States
should continue to advance its support for the innocent victims of this
civil war. Meanwhile, we should also aggressively use this opportunity
to facilitate new international partnerships that seek lasting
solutions to complicated situations of mass violence.
Until such a united front is achieved, unilateral military action may
only introduce further chaos to an already disastrous problem and, as I
have said, implicitly put us on the side of a rebel movement who has
also shown willingness to murder innocent civilians. And it is not
clear whether or not the more
[[Page H5468]]
moderate elements of that very movement have any capacity to implement
governing structures that are just and lasting. So then what happens?
Syria, this area degrades into a vast, ungovernable space, ripe for
jihadists with no protections for innocent persons or the ancient
peoples who call that place home.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other aspects of this that I have
written about that I would like to share momentarily, but I would like
to turn to my good friend, Congressman Charlie Dent from Pennsylvania,
as he wishes to share a few concepts and perspectives on this conflict.
Mr. DENT. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for organizing this
Special Order this evening to discuss the crisis in Syria. In my view,
it is really indisputable that Bashar al-Assad is a villain who has
committed heinous, mortal crimes with the use of chemical weapons
against his own people.
What is debatable, however, is America's policy on Syria and the
broader Middle East. I have raised the issue of Syria with this
administration at numerous hearings as a member of the Appropriations
Committee. I have also worked with Syrians in my own community, and I
have the largest population of Syrian Americans of any Member of
Congress in the United States. I have met with them. They have brought
to my attention issues of abducted Christian archbishops who have been
abducted in Syrian and whose whereabouts, unfortunately, are unknown.
There is a lot of work going on to try to secure their release, but
that said, you can understand their concern for that part of the world.
I have spent time, too, in meetings with America's wonderful friend,
King Abdullah of Jordan, who has also shared his perspective on the
plight of the Syrian people. But what I have observed most of all is a
very sad observation, and that is the friends of the Syrian regime--
Iran, Russia and Hezbollah--are far more committed to President Assad
than the friends of the Syrian people--and that would be the West and
the Arab League--are to these moderate opposition forces.
I had asked Secretary Hillary Clinton--former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton--back in February, 2012, if the administration was
prepared to provide some type of material support to moderate secular
opposition groups given that it looked like Assad's government was very
weak, there was a popular uprising, and it seemed there might be a
better outcome. She was pretty clear with me at the time that she
thought providing light arms would be of little help to the opposition
in the face of Assad's substantial military, with all his air assets,
artillery and armor. To put it bluntly and short, she really didn't
want to get too involved at that time. We really didn't have much of a
discussion about the benefits to America, its friends and allies and
their interests, if Iran's influence in the region were substantially
weakened through the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad.
I thought at the time that the President was maybe more concerned
about maintaining his reputation as a Nobel Peace Prize winner antiwar
candidate than actually developing what I thought would be a more
practical response for Syria. It just seemed that inaction and
indecision were, and frankly today, remain the order of the day.
In the meantime, let's fast forward from a year and a half, 2 years
ago to today: al-Nusra and other radical Islamist terrorist
organizations have rushed into this vacuum and filled the void, so to
speak. So really today there aren't any good public policy outcomes for
the United States. The time for the United States to more
constructively intervene and to reach a more efficacious resolution,
the time for that has long passed.
So here we are, over these last 2\1/2\ years, this Syrian civil war
has descended into both a sectarian and proxy conflict, and these
events have moved well beyond the United States ability to control with
Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia fully committed to the Assad government.
I think we all know, as Mr. Fortenberry knows, we know we have a very
war-weary population which is not going to support a half-hearted,
poorly thought out military strike which will only expose the United
States and its friends to greater risks, including the possibility of a
broader regional conflagration. This could include more chemical
weapons attacks against the Syrian people and possibly Israel,
potential cyber attacks on American critical infrastructure in both the
financial services and energy sectors, an unleashed Hezbollah, and
other unforeseen, asymmetrical responses.
I am deeply concerned about this, as we all should be. But we can't
just look at Syria in isolation; we have to look at it in the much
broader context of the Middle East. Unfortunately, and I'm going to
have to be a bit critical of the President at this time, witness how
President Obama turned his back on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in
2011 after 2 weeks of uprisings. Whatever his faults, whatever his
shortcomings, Hosni Mubarak was a loyal, 30-year friend of the United
States--a lesson learned by our friends and our allies throughout the
region and throughout the world.
Of course, prior to that incident there was the Green Revolution in
Iran where we saw a lot of very brave people in Iran stand up to the
Ahmadinejad regime in Iran. We witnessed that, and it seemed this
administration could barely utter words of support to these very brave
people who stood up to a tyrant, Ahmadinejad, who made all sorts of
reckless and inflammatory and hateful statements against the West and
particularly Israel, and so I was just astounded that the
administration could barely utter words of support.
Then, of course, we learned about leading from behind in Libya.
Actually, leading from behind the French and the British in Libya, to
be precise. I was one of only a handful of Republicans in the House to
support the authorization for force in Libya--after the fact, but I
supported it. So I'm not an isolationist. I believe that we have an
important role internationally with the United States, and we have to
be constructively engaged.
But let's move forward to 2013. Bashar al-Assad's government launches
chemical attacks against his own people. I believe the intelligence is
clear that he did it, or his government did it, so I'm not debating
those facts, what appear to be facts. But we witnessed these chemicals
attacks in both the late spring and again just a few weeks ago in
August, these chemical attacks. We witnessed the trampling of the red
line set down by the President not once but twice, maybe more than that
for all I know. And now over 100,000 Syrians have been killed. What is
the President's strategy for Syria? I couldn't explain it to anybody if
they asked. He talked about pinpricks or his administration has talked
about pinpricks, shots across the bow, a military action of days not
weeks, and no intention to topple Assad or to degrade his military
capacity to make war on his own people, for that matter. I'm learning a
lot about what we will not do, but I'm not really sure what we're
trying to do or trying to accomplish. So a very limited air strike to
punish Mr. Assad is not going to alter the outcome of the Syrian civil
war. What is the point or purpose? What is the clarity of mission?
In my view, America's national interest is really twofold in Syria.
One, we want to limit Iranian influence in the region, and, two, the
other issue deals with securing those chemical weapons, frankly, from
both the Assad government and the radical elements of that opposition
who would probably be just as inclined to use them. So much so that
King Abdullah of Jordan came to Members of Congress to express his real
concern about al-Nusra forces getting too close, dangerously close to a
chemical site in southern Syria, and that was just a few months ago.
So now we also witnessed, too, there really is not a coalition of the
willing to tackle Mr. Assad's crimes. It seems more a coalition of the
unwilling. The United Nations really doesn't seem anywhere to be found,
although in recent days, in the last 24 hours we're hearing there might
be some discussion with the Russians about some kind of a resolution on
securing those sites, but the U.N. is really nowhere to be found. NATO
does not seem to be fully engaged at all, although maybe some members
are supportive. And, of course, we've witnessed what the British
Parliament did to Prime Minister Cameron in rebuking him. And so the
British, our beloved friends and allies, are not going to be engaged in
this one,
[[Page H5469]]
and so we're pretty much on our own. Again, I've called this a
coalition of the unwilling. And so I think it would behoove the United
States not to move in what appears to be almost a unilateral manner.
I have read, too, recently, that some of the Arab governments, Saudi
Arabia and others, would be willing to help pay for some of this
mission should we strike. You know, on the one hand, I appreciate that.
On the other, the United States military is really not a mercenary
force for anyone. A lot of folks may be encouraging us or cheering us
on, but it doesn't seem they are willing to put people in harm's way.
So I think we have to keep that in mind as we talk about this.
I'm going to conclude in a moment, but I was one of the folks who
said it is always important for the President to consult with Congress
prior to taking any kind of military action. It's important in our
system, although I don't believe the President necessarily needs a
congressional authorization for what he has called a very limited
airstrike. But now that he has asked me to engage in this debate, I owe
the President fair consideration of his policy in Syria, whatever it
may be.
Again, I said call me skeptical; now you can call me outright
opposed. I have said from day one that the President didn't seem to
have his heart in this impending military action. He was looking for a
way out after the U.N., the U.K., and NATO, a lot of our friends were
just not willing to go along, and then the President turned to Congress
as a last resort for an authorization where he has, of course, run into
very, very heavy skepticism. I just did see any Churchillian resolve in
our Commander in Chief. Our men and women in uniform deserve a
Commander in Chief who is full-throated in support of what is likely to
become a very dangerous military operation and could possibly spiral
out of control. But more importantly, we have to be cognizant of the
potential consequences and ramifications for that action.
I think the President of the United States owes that to the American
people, to make it clear what his policy is, what his mission is, not
what he's not going to do, but what he intends to do. After the
President really threw this issue to Congress, we witnessed President
Assad's jubilant supporters celebrating in the Syrian streets, and I'm
sure the corridors of power in Tehran and Moscow, and it seems now that
America's friends and allies watched this mystifying failure of
Presidential leadership unfold with dismay.
So have our constituents. We have all received these calls. In my
view, and I am really sad to say this, Barack Obama may have diminished
his own Presidency in the process, but more problematically, diminished
America's standing in the world among both friend and foe alike, and
that's a real tragedy.
{time} 1845
You know, in this upcoming vote in Congress, if it's to come at all
at this point, it is really not so much a vote on authorizing a
military strike or military intervention in Syria. The stakes have
grown beyond that. It's much more a vote of confidence on the
President's Syrian and broader Middle East policy. On that score, I
have no confidence.
And I just wanted to say one last thing. I mentioned I have a very
large Syrian population in my community, Syrian Americans. They're
great Americans. They've been part of my community for a long time,
largely Christian, Antioch Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian and
other denominations.
They are scared. I think they know what Bashar Assad is, and many are
very uncomfortable with what he is. And on the other hand, they have
seen al-Nusra and al Qaeda, and are absolutely terrified of that
operation.
And so they're caught in this sectarian crossfire. They don't want to
be there. They're worried about atrocities, grievous atrocities being
committed against the Christian people of Syria.
We just witnessed the other day, there was a story of a small
village, I believe not too far from Damascus, where the language of
Aramaic is spoken; I guess one of the few places in the world where it
is still spoken.
Why is that significant?
Well, if you're a Christian, you know that Aramaic was the language
that Jesus Christ spoke. And to know that this ancient community--and
of course much of Syria's an ancient civilization--to know that these
people could be under attack when you find out that al-Nusra forces had
entered and intervened, and I hope they've been cleared out.
But that said, you think about this, and we worry about the history
of mankind and the history of the Christian tradition is at risk here,
and potentially a great risk of extermination.
And we've witnessed this in Egypt too. I mean, there are lessons to
be learned from Egypt. When Mubarak fell, the Christian population, the
Coptic Christian population of Egypt, became very vulnerable. We know
that--extremely vulnerable. Atrocities committed against Christians,
desecration of the churches, burning, other terrible things have
happened, and I fear that we might see similar, if not worse, things
happen in Syria.
So whatever this country chooses, whatever course of action this
country chooses to pursue, I don't believe that a military intervention
right now by the United States would advance America's policy
objectives; and frankly, I don't think it would change the trajectory
of the Syrian civil war.
People have said, well, doing nothing at all is the worst of all
possibilities, the worst of all options. Well, I would argue that if
we're not certain what this limited, so-called limited military
intervention will bring, if we're very unclear about that, then I would
argue that no action is better than a limited action which may not do
much of anything to alter the course of this civil war. So I think we
have to be very cautious and very restrained.
I do appreciate the gentleman from Nebraska allowing me this
opportunity to speak on this issue, and for his leadership, and for
allowing me this time.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Let me thank you, as well, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, my good friend. I've heard you speak behind the scenes in
this body, particularly today, with great passion, particularly for the
people who are directly impacted by this, people who you represent and
are directly connected to the conflict, the ancient Christian
community, as you said.
I appreciate your clarity and your resolve on this issue because I
know you, as I do, have great respect for the institution of the
Presidency. He is our Commander in Chief.
But we also have a responsibility to render to him our judgment in
this case; and so my judgment is no, that a unilateral military strike
is not going to accomplish an objective of potentially stabilizing,
punishing, preventing Assad from doing further harm and stabilizing
that situation, versus pulling the United States, as a coalition of
one, into a conflict where we are very unclear as to what the
collateral damage and destabilization outcome could actually be.
In addition to that, the American people are intuiting that there is
a serious, serious problem here with us being drawn into another
conflict where the options are all bad, where our hearts are with the
innocent victims, and we will continue to provide humanitarian aid.
But we must not allow the international community to simply hide
behind our military might; and I think that that is what the people are
sensing, that we are being drawn into something that has much broader
implications for the entire international community to respond in a
constructive, creative way.
And if we would have expended this energy, as I said earlier, on
trying to get underneath the problem and perhaps point the finger and
lay it at the footsteps of the Russians, who are completely entangled
in this situation, maybe we would have had better movement on this
question prior to now.
Now, we'll see what the President says tonight. We'll listen with an
open mind. I don't know whether he is going to pull back from his
intention to potentially strike Syria or not. But I think it is prudent
to allow some diplomatic actions to potentially take their course, even
though that might be a bit farfetched at the moment.
But, hopefully, that new diplomatic momentum has some good creative
elements and stops the situation, pressures Assad, brings about a
collective
[[Page H5470]]
international response that stabilizes the situation and protects
innocent people. I think that's the best outcome that we could
potentially hope for here.
Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. It seems that the policy of the United States and Syria,
since the beginning of the uprising in Syria, has largely been one of
inaction and detachment. And, in many respects, we outsourced the
arming of the opposition forces to many of our good friends: the Turks,
the Qataris, the Saudis, and others. And whether we like it or not--and
we don't like it in many respects--many of the folks who were armed
were people who don't share our interests and values, the al-Nusra
forces in particular.
But there are moderate forces, and if the United States had
demonstrated some leadership early in this, during that conflict, to
help identify moderate secular opposition forces, there probably could
have been multi-ethnic again and secular, it could have been Kurdish
and Christian and moderate Sunni, that might have helped bring about a
more legitimate or a better opposition force that the international
community would be rallying around.
But that, unfortunately, has not happened, and now you read about
large swaths of territory in Syria dominated by some opposition forces
that have been rather radicalized; and that's unfortunate because there
are many elements of the Free Syrian Army, of course, who really do
want to try to bring about more representative government and, I think,
would embrace the values that you and I hold dear.
But, you know, time has passed. Time has passed, and I just don't see
a good outcome, as I stated earlier, at this point. And I just wish--I
think the American people understand this intuitively.
And it also speaks to NATO. What's happening with NATO?
It's a great organization. I believe in NATO. It's a collective
defense organization. I believe in its military value and its political
value. But it seems, since the end of the Cold War, maybe it's gone a
little bit adrift.
And Turkey has been a loyal friend and NATO ally for decades. They
are directly affected by this conflict in Syria. They may make demands
of us and NATO at some point, and we're going to have to think that
through, as policymakers, what we would do if our good friends, the
Turks, make a request of us, and certainly our good friends in Jordan.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Reclaiming my time, it's a good question you raised,
and one that I pointed to earlier, new international constructs that
might be using templates of old international constructs, but that are
revitalized so that we can have collective operations, if necessary, to
engage in this type of stopping mass violence.
The NATO allocations for many countries, they don't meet them year
after year. In other words, the money they're supposed to contribute,
they just don't do it.
So who has to pick up the pieces?
We do. There's a ``free rider problem'' as we call it here. And you
deal in a lot of international diplomatic circles and you constantly
hear it. Oh, the United States is the only one who has the ability.
You're the only superpower. You must act, and it is your--you must be
compelled morally, based upon who you are, to do something here.
All of those are fine points. But in the 21st century, you have a
shift of the global framework for international stability occurring. We
have expended ourselves, as a country, for nearly 70 years, providing
that framework for global stability, economically and politically
protecting human rights, as I said earlier, not always perfectly.
But the United States cannot single-handedly lift this burden for the
entire world, particularly for countries that benefited from our past
sacrifice, who have the economic wherewithal, and should have the moral
compass to be thinking constructively about regional organizations that
stop this type of conflict before it starts and demanding just outcomes
of sovereign territories.
That is the long-term strategy. I recognize we're in a difficult
moment because we're being pressured to decide unilateral military
action or not, but this is the type of long-term thinking that I think
will help bring about new models of international, multilateral
cooperation to prevent this from happening, or when it does happen, to
have the right response in place.
Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. I just want to say one more thing. You know, the President
has said that this red line that was crossed was not his red line, but
the international community's red line. Ninety-eight percent of the
world has opposed chemical weapons use and has agreed to the various
conventions on chemical weapons.
Unfortunately, 98 percent of the world isn't prepared to help us in
this intervention. We're on our own, and I just wanted to point that
out.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, our time has expired, and I do thank you for
the good constructive conversation. I appreciate your insights and
clarity on the situation. It's complex, it's difficult; but, again,
unilateral military action allows the international community to hide
behind our might, and it's simply not the right response at this time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________