[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6340-S6348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SYRIA
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak to the grave issue of the
Syria resolution currently pending before the body.
It is September 11. I know many Members have expressed thoughts, and
we are all thinking about that day and what it means to our country. In
a few minutes I will leave and go to the Pentagon to be with Pentagon
staffers and family members as they commemorate the anniversary of this
horrible tragedy in American life. The shadow of that tragedy and its
rippling effects even today, 12 years later, definitely are a matter on
my mind and heart as I think about this issue with respect to Syria.
Also on my mind and heart as I think about this grave issue is its
connection to Virginia. I believe Virginia is the most militarily
connected State in our country. Our map is a map of American military
history: the battle at Yorktown, the surrender at Appomattox Court
House, the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11. Our map is a map of American
military history. We are more connected to the military in the sense
that one in nine of our citizens is a veteran. We have Active Duty at
the Pentagon, training to be officers at Quantico, the largest
concentration of naval power in the world at Hampton Roads. We have DOD
contractors. We have DOD civilians such as Army nurses. We have ROTC
cadets, Guard and Reserve members, and military families, all of whom
care very deeply about the issue we are grappling with as a nation.
I am sure in the Presiding Officer's State, as in mine and across the
country, there is a war weariness on this 12th anniversary of 9/11, and
that affects the way we look at this question of whether the United
States should potentially engage in military action.
I cast a vote last week in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to
authorize limited military action, and I have spent the days since that
vote talking to Virginians and hearing from them and hearing from some
who aren't happy with the vote I cast.
I spent 1 day talking to ROTC cadets at Virginia State University,
folks who are training to be officers who might fight in future
conflicts for this country. Then I spent Friday in Hampton Roads with
veterans and military families talking about the choices before us.
I heard a teenager last night say something that truly struck me.
This is a teenager who doesn't have any direct connection to the
military herself, no family members in service. But at an event I was
attending, she stood and said: I don't know war, but all my generation
and I know is war. Think about that: I don't know war, but all my
generation and I know is war. During her entire life that she has been
kind of a thinking person, aware of the outside world, we have been at
war. That makes us tremendously war-weary, and I understand that. So
trying to separate out all those feelings and do what is right is hard.
Similar to many Virginians, I have family in the military who are
going to be directly affected by what we do or what we don't do. I
think about those family members and all Virginians and all Americans
who have loved ones in service as I contemplate this difficult issue.
I wish to say three things. First, I wish to praise the President for
bringing this matter to Congress, which I believe is courageous and
historic. Secondly, I wish to talk about why I believe authorizing
limited military action makes sense. Third, I wish to talk about the
need to exhaust all diplomatic opportunities and openings, including
the ones that were reported beginning Monday of this week by Russia and
Syria.
First, on the President coming to Congress. This was what was
intended by the Framers of the Constitution; that prior to the
initiation of significant military action--and this would be
significant by all accounts--that Congress should have to weigh in. The
Framers wanted that to be so. They had read history. They knew
executives might be a little too prone to initiating military action,
and they wanted to make sure the people's elected representatives had a
vote about whether an action should be initiated. Once initiated, there
is only one Commander in Chief. But at the initiation, Congress needs
to be involved. That was the intent from the very beginning of this
Nation from 1787. There was an understanding that in an emergency, a
President might need to act immediately, but even in that case there
would need to be a reckoning, a coming back to Congress and seeking
approval of Presidential action.
In my view, the President, by bringing this matter to Congress, has
acted in accord with law, acted in accord with the intent of the
Framers of the Constitution, and actually has done so in a way that has
cleared up some sloppiness about the way this institution and the
President has actually done this over time.
Only five times in the history of the Nation has Congress declared
war. Over 120 times Presidents have initiated military action without
congressional approval--at least prior congressional approval.
Presidents have overreached their power, and Congress has often made a
decision to avoid being accountable for this most grave decision that
we make as a nation.
I praise the President for bringing it to Congress, the people's
body, because I think it is in accord with law. But I praise him for a
second reason. It is not just about the constitutional allocation of
responsibility. Responsibilities were allocated in the Constitution, in
my view, for a very important moral reason. The moral reason is this:
We cannot ask our men and women in service to put their lives on the
line if there is not a consensus of the legislative and executive
branches that the mission is worthwhile.
That is why it is important for Congress to weigh in on a decision to
initiate military hostility because, absent that, we face the situation
that would be a very real possibility in this instance that a President
would make a decision that an action or a war was worth fighting but a
Congress would not support it. That would put the men and women who
have to face the risk
[[Page S6341]]
and potentially risk their lives in a very difficult situation. If we
are going to ask people to risk their lives in any kind of a military
action, we shouldn't be asking them to do it if the legislative and
political branches haven't reached some consensus that it should be
done.
That is the first point I wish to make. I wish to thank the President
for cleaning up this sloppiness in the historical allocation of
responsibilities between a President and Congress, for taking a
historic step--as he said he would as a candidate--of bringing a
question such as this to Congress.
We may be unable to act in certain cases because we are divided. But
if we act and we act united, we are much stronger both militarily and
in the moral example that we pose to the world. It is the right thing
to do for the troops who bear the burden of battle.
Second, I wish to talk about the actual authorization. We grappled
with this. The news came out about the chemical weapons attack on
August 21, and 18 of us members of the Foreign Relations Committee
returned last week. The Presiding Officer came and attended some of our
classified meetings. We grappled with the question about whether in
this circumstance a limited military authorization was appropriate, and
I voted yes. I voted yes for a very simple reason. I believe there has
to be a consequence for using chemical weapons against civilians.
It is pretty simple. There are a lot of nuances, a lot of subtleties,
and a lot of questions about whether the plans might accomplish the
particular objective we hope. Those are all legitimate questions. But
at the end of the day, I feel so very strongly that if chemical weapons
have been used--and in this case they were and used on a massive scale
and used against civilians--there must be a consequence for that. There
must be a sharp consequence for it. If there isn't, the whole world
will be worse off.
I believe that if the United States acts in this way to uphold an
important international norm--perhaps the most important international
norm that weapons of mass destruction can't be used against civilians--
if we act to uphold the norm, we will have partners. How many partners?
We will see. Maybe not as many as we would wish, but we will have
partners. But I am also convinced that if the United States does not
act to uphold this principle, I don't think anyone will act. If we act,
we will have partners; if we don't, I don't think anyone will act. That
is the burden of leadership that is on this country's shoulders.
We know about the history of the chemical weapons ban, and we are so
used to it that it seems normal. But just to kind of step back from it,
if we think about it, it is not that normal at all.
The chemical weapons ban came out of World War I. World War I was a
mechanized slaughter with over 10 million deaths, a slaughter unlike
anything that had ever been seen in global history. There were all
kinds of weapons used in World War I that had never been used before,
including dropping bombs out of airplanes. Dropping bombs out of
airplanes, new kinds of artillery, new kinds of munitions, new kinds of
machine guns, chemical weapons, all kinds of mechanized and
industrialized weapons were used in World War I. The American troops
who served in 1917 and 1918 were gassed. They would be sleeping in a
trench, trying to get a couple hours of sleep, and they would wake up
coughing their lungs out or blinded--or they wouldn't wake up because
some of the gases were invisible and silent. With no knowledge, you
could suddenly lose your life or be disabled for life because of
chemical weapons.
The number of casualties in World War I because of chemical weapons
was small as a percentage of the total casualties. But it is
interesting what happened. After World War I, the nations of the world
that had been at each other's throats, that had battled each other,
gathered a few years later. It is interesting to think what they banned
and didn't ban. They didn't ban aerial bombardment. They didn't ban
machine guns. They didn't ban rockets. They didn't ban shells. They
didn't ban artillery. But they did decide to ban chemical weapons. They
were able to all agree, as combatants, that chemical weapons were
unacceptable and should neither be manufactured nor used.
It can seem maybe a little bit illogical or even absurd: Why is it
worse to be killed by a chemical weapon than a machine gun or by an
artillery shell? I don't know what the logic is to it. All I can assume
is that the experience of that day and moment had inspired some common
spark of humanity in all of these cultures and combating nations, and
they all agreed the use of chemical weapons should be banned heretofore
on the Earth.
Nations agreed with that ban. The Soviet Union was on board. The
United States was on board. So many nations were on board. Syria
ultimately signed that accord in 1968. Even in the midst of horrific
wars where humans have done horrific things to each other, since 1925
and the passage of the ban, the ban has stuck. The international
community has kept that ember of humanity alive that says these weapons
should not be used, and only two dictators until now have used these
weapons--Adolph Hitler using these weapons against millions of Jews and
others and Saddam Hussein using the weapons against Kurds, his own
people, and then against Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war.
When we think about it, it is pretty amazing. With all the barbarity
that has happened since 1925, this has generally stuck, with the
exception of Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein, until now. The
beneficiaries of this policy have been civilians, but they have also
been American service men and women. The service men and women who
fought in World War I were gassed from this country, but the Americans
who fought in World War II, in Europe and North Africa and the Pacific,
who fought in Korea, who fought in Vietnam, who fought in Afghanistan,
who fought in Iraq, who fought in other minor military involvements
have never had to worry about facing chemical weapons. No matter how
bad the opponent was, American troops haven't had to worry about it,
and the troops of other nations haven't had to worry about it either.
This is a very important principle, and it is a positive thing for
humanity that we reached this accord and we have honored it.
So what happens now if there isn't a consequence for Bashar al-
Assad's escalating use of chemical weapons, to include chemical weapons
against civilians.
What happens if we let go of the norm and we say: Look, that may have
been OK for the 20th century, but we are tougher and more cynical now.
There are not any more limits now, so we don't have to abide by any
norms now. What I believe the lesson is--and I think the lessons of
history will demonstrate that this will apply--is that an atrocity
unpunished will engender future atrocities. We will see more atrocities
in Syria against civilians and others. We will see more atrocities
abroad. We will see atrocities, and we will have to face the likely
consequence that our servicemembers, who have not had to face chemical
weapons since 1925, will now have to prepare to face them on the
battlefield.
If countries can use chemical weapons and there is no serious
consequence, guess what else they can do. They can manufacture chemical
weapons. Guess what else. They can sell chemical weapons and
proliferate chemical weapons. It is not just a matter that the use of
chemical weapons would be encouraged, but the manufacture and sale of
chemical weapons by individuals or companies or countries that want to
make money will proliferate.
This has a devastating potential effect on allies of the United
States and the neighbors around Syria such as Lebanon, Israel, Jordan,
and Turkey. It would have a devastating impact on other allies, such as
South Korea, that border nations that use chemical weapons. It could
encourage other nations that have nonchemical weapons of mass
destruction, for example, nuclear weapons, to think that the world will
not stand up, there is no consequence for their use so they can violate
treaties, violate norms, and no one is willing to stand and oppose it.
That was the reason I voted last week in the Foreign Relations
Committee for this limited authorization of military force. I was fully
aware the debate on the floor might amend or change it, and I was open
to that possibility. But I thought it was important
[[Page S6342]]
to stand as a representative of Virginia and a representative of this
country to say: The use of chemical weapons may suddenly be OK in the
21st century for Bashar al-Asad, it may suddenly be OK to Vladimir
Putin and others, but it is not OK to the United States of America, and
we are willing to stand and oppose them.
The limited military authorization that is on this floor, as the
Presiding Officer knows, talks about action to punish, deter, and
degrade the ability of the Syrian regime to use chemical weapons. The
goal is to take the chemical weapons stockpile of that nation out of
the battlefield equation. The civil war will continue. We don't have
the power, as the United States, to dictate the outcome of that war.
But chemical weapons should not be part of that war, and they should
not be part of any war.
The authorization was limited. There will be no ground troops. It was
limited in scope and duration, but make no mistake, the authorization
was a clear statement of American resolve that there has to be a
consequence for use of these weapons in violation of international
norms that have been in place since 1925.
Finally, I want to talk about diplomacy and the urgent need that I
know we all feel in this body, and as Americans, to pursue diplomatic
alternatives--including some current alternatives on the table--that
would be far preferable to military action. It is very important that
we be creative. It is very important that we have direct talks with the
perpetrators and enablers of these crimes, but also important to look
to intermediaries and independent nations for diplomatic alternatives.
We have been trying to do so until recently and have been blocked in
the United Nations. But the authorization for military force actually
had that as its first caveat. The authorization said: Mr. President, if
this passes, we authorize you to use military force, but before you do,
you have to come back to Congress and stipulate that all diplomatic
angles, options, and possibilities have been exhausted.
So on the committee, and with the wording of this authorization, we
were very focused on the need to continue a diplomatic effort, and that
is why it was so gratifying on Monday, on my way back to DC after a
long week, to hear that Russia had come to the table with a proposal
inspired by a discussion with administration figures. It is a proposal
that the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile--one of the largest in the
world--would be placed under international control.
Then a few hours later--and this was no coincidence--Syria,
essentially Russia's client state, spoke up and said: We will very much
entertain placing our chemical weapons under international control.
Syria has even suggested, beyond that, they would finally sign on to
the 1990s-era Chemical Weapons Convention. They are one of six nations
in the world that refused to sign it. Syria would not even acknowledge
they had chemical weapons until 2012--even though the world knew it.
Over the last 48 hours, we have seen diplomatic options emerge that
are very serious and meaningful. In fact--and it is too early to tell--
if we can have these discussions and find an accord where Syria will
sign on to the convention and put these weapons under international
control, we will not only have avoided a bad thing, such as military
action, which none of us want unless it is necessary, but we will have
accomplished a good thing for Syrians and humanity by taking this
massive chemical weapons stockpile off the battlefield and submitting
it to international control and eventually destruction.
The offer that is on the table, and the action that has happened
since Monday is very serious, very significant, and very encouraging,
and it could be a game changer in this discussion. I said it is
serious, but what we still need to determine is if it is sincere. It is
serious and significant, but obviously what the administration needs to
do in tandem with the U.N. is to determine whether it is sincere.
I will conclude by saying I think it is very important for Americans,
for citizens, and for the Members of Congress to understand--we should
make no mistake about this--that the diplomatic offer that is on the
table was not on the table until America demonstrated it was prepared
to stand for the proposition that chemical weapons cannot be used.
I have no doubt that had we not taken the action in Congress last
week in the Foreign Relations Committee to show America is resolved to
do something, if no one else in the world is resolved to do something,
at least we would be resolved to do something, had we not taken that
action, Russia would not have suddenly changed its position--they have
been blocking action after action in the Security Council--and come
forward with this serious recommendation. Had we not taken that action,
and had they not been frightened of what America might do, Syria--which
was willing to use with impunity these weapons against civilians--would
not have come forward either.
So American resolve is important. American resolve is important to
show the world that we value this norm and we will enforce it, even to
the point of limited military action. But even more important, American
resolve is important because it encourages other nations--even the
perpetrators and enablers of the use of these weapons--to come forward
and shoulder the responsibilities they have, or so we pray, in the days
ahead.
What I ask of my colleagues and my countrymen is that because it has
been our resolve that has produced a possibility for a huge diplomatic
breakthrough and win, I ask we continue to be resolved, continue to
show strength, continue to hold out the option that there will be a
consequence for this international crime, that America will play a
leading role in making sure there is a consequence, and as long as we
stand strong with this resolve, we will maximize the chance that we
will be able to obtain the diplomatic result we want.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The minority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, my dad was a pilot in the Army Air Corps
in World War II. He served in the Eighth Air Force, the 303rd Bomb
Group stationed in Molesworth, England. On his 26th bombing mission
over Nazi Germany, he was shot down and captured as a prisoner of war
where he served for the remainder of the war. So I learned at a very
young age that when we start talking about matters of war and peace, we
must take these very seriously.
I appreciate the fact that President Obama came to Capitol Hill
yesterday and spoke to both the Democratic conference and the
Republican conference. I further appreciate very much the fact that
President Obama spoke to the American people last night. I actually
wish he had done it a little earlier since the chemical weapons attacks
occurred on the 21st of August. It was roughly 3 weeks after that that
he finally spoke to the American people. I think it would have been
better for him and better for the country if he had done it sooner and
demonstrated a greater urgency, but I am glad he did it.
When a President asks the American people to support our U.S.
military and the use of military force, he has a solemn obligation to
communicate to the American people how it will protect America's vital
interests. He has an obligation to tell the American people why going
to war is absolutely essential to U.S. national security. He has an
obligation to lay out clear and realistic objectives; and finally, he
has an obligation to explain how military intervention fits within
America's broader foreign policy strategy.
I have used the word war advisedly because sometimes I think we get
caught up in political correctness around here--talking about workplace
violence at Fort Hood and overseas contingency operations.
As a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps who served 40 years told me
last week when I asked for his advice on what the President was asking
us to do, he said: Anytime you kill people in the name of the U.S.
Government, it is an act of war.
So like others in this Chamber over the last few weeks, I have
attended meetings with the President where I had the honor of being in
his presence and listening to him in person on two occasions. I
listened to other administration officials. Like all of us, I sat
[[Page S6343]]
through hours of classified briefings with the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Department of Defense, and the State Department.
I have listened intently as Senator Kerry described in what I thought
at first was an inadvertent statement made as a result of fatigue. I
can only imagine what he must have been going through. He has been
shuttled back and forth around the world to try to resolve this issue.
But he described this strike as unbelievably small. I was further
surprised when I heard the White House press secretary say: No, it
wasn't a gaffe; he didn't misspeak. I mean, we all misspeak from time
to time, so I expected him to say: Well, he should have used other
words or might have used other words. Then Senator Kerry himself--now
Secretary Kerry--said: No, I didn't misspeak.
I was encouraged to hear the President address the Nation because I
believe before we take our case overseas to American allies, we should
first make the case here at home to the American people.
In making their case for a brief, limited attack against Syria,
administration officials have repeatedly said U.S. military
intervention would not seek to topple the Asad regime even though
regime change has been the policy of the U.S. Government since at least
August 2011. They said their military campaign would not seek to change
the momentum in Syria's civil war, even though, as I mentioned a moment
ago, our government's official policy is one of regime change, that
Asad must go.
My view is a U.S. attack that allowed Asad to remain in power with
one of the world's largest stockpiles of chemical weapons would not
promote U.S. national security interests. Indeed, it is not hard to
imagine how that kind of intervention could actually backfire and end
up being a propaganda disaster.
Many of us are concerned about upholding America's credibility,
particularly when it comes to matters such as this, and I share their
concern. But it would help if before we launch a halfhearted,
ineffectual attack which gives our enemies a major propaganda victory
that we come up with a more coherent plan and strategy for
accomplishing our public policy goals.
Murphy's law says what can go wrong will go wrong. Well, there is a
Murphy's law of war too--perhaps many of them but one of them is no
plan to go to war survives the first contact intact. In other words, we
can plan to shoot the first bullet, but we can't control what happens
after that.
In all likelihood, such an attack would hurt our credibility and
reduce U.S. public support for future interventions. This is what I
mean: If we were to undertake a limited military attack against Asad in
order to punish him for using chemical weapons--which is a horrific act
on his part, a barbaric act on his part--but it left Asad in power,
what is he going to tell the rest of the world? He is going to say: The
world's greatest military force took a shot at me and I am still here.
I am still in power. I won and America lost. That is how I can see this
backfiring in a very serious way, undermining America's credibility--
credibility we must keep intact, particularly as we look at larger,
looming threats such as the Iranian aspiration for nuclear weapons.
I wish to be clear, though: I would be willing to support a military
operation in Syria but only if our intervention met certain criteria.
No. 1: If it directly addressed the nightmare scenario of Asad's use of
chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. It is not just
his use of chemical weapons on his own people; it is the potential that
those chemical weapons could get into the hands of Al Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations and harm either Americans or American interests
around the world.
No. 2: I could support a resolution if it involved the use of
decisive and overwhelming force, without self-imposed limitations, and
without leaking to our enemies what our tactics are and what it is we
would not do, and ruining one of the greatest tools in war, which is
the element of surprise. Why in the world would we tell Asad what we
are going to do--and Secretary Kerry said it would be a small attack--
and why would we tell Asad what we won't do, thereby eliminating both
the ambiguity of our position and the potential threat of even more
serious and overwhelming military force?
No. 3: I would be willing to support an authorization if it were an
integral part of a larger coherent Syria policy that clearly defined
the political end state. I still remember General Petraeus, the head of
Central Command covering Iraq and Afghanistan, talking about our policy
in those countries. He said, The most important question, perhaps, when
we go to war is how does this end. We need a clearly defined political
end state that we are trying to achieve by what the President requested
and we need an outline of a realistic path to get there.
No. 4: I believe it is important that we have a sizable international
coalition of nations, each of which is contributing to the war effort.
This is an amazing reversal for the President since the time he was a
Senator and a Presidential candidate. To say we are not going to the
United Nations--and I understand why; because of China and Russia,
their veto of any resolution out of the Security Council, we are not
going to go to NATO. Indeed, the President seemed content, or at least
resigned, to going it alone. And if it is true this redline is the
international community's redline, then the international community
needs to contribute to the effort to hold Asad accountable.
The problem is President Obama's requested authorization for the use
of military force under these circumstances fails to meet each of those
criteria. He has failed to make the case that a short, limited military
campaign would promote our vital interests and our national security.
He has failed to lay out clear and realistic objectives that could be
obtained through the use of military force. And he has failed to offer
a compelling description of how his proposed intervention would advance
America's broader foreign policy strategy; indeed, how it would advance
his own policy of regime change. Therefore, if we were asked to vote on
an authorization under these circumstances, I would vote no.
I am under no illusion--none of us are--about the utter depravity of
Bashar al-Asad. Over the last 2\1/2\ years his regime has committed
unspeakable acts of rape, torture, and murder. The chemical weapons
attacks, by the way, as described by Secretary Kerry's own testimony in
the House of Representatives, included 11 earlier uses of chemical
weapons, but they were smaller. Can we imagine the difficulty of trying
to impose a redline when that redline is crossed 11 times before the
President finally decides to try to enforce it? But there is no
question that the use of chemical weapons shows an appalling disregard
for human life and a cruel desire to terrorize the Syrian population.
I, as others, have consistently demanded that Russia stop arming Asad
and stop defending him and blocking U.N. Security Council resolutions,
and aiding and abetting his barbaric atrocities against his own people.
I want to see a free democratic Syria as much as anyone else. But that
does not mean I will vote to support a reckless, ill-advised military
intervention that could jeopardize our most important national security
interests.
There have been a lot of people who have opined on the President's
request, some better informed than others. One opinion I found
particularly convincing was that of retired Army MG Robert Scales who
has written that the path to war chosen by the Obama administration
``violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise,
achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.''
As I said, we know the latest chemical weapons attack occurred on
August 21. Yet President Obama didn't address the Nation until 3 weeks
later. The Syrians, of course, have now had weeks to prepare for any
pending military intervention and no doubt have moved the chemical
weapons to other locations and their military equipment to civilian
population centers in order to protect them from any attack. With no
element of surprise, it makes the potential for success of any military
intervention much less and reveals there is no real coherent policy in
this regard.
Consider what happened last Monday. Secretary of State Kerry made
what he calls an off-the-cuff remark about the possibility of canceling
a missile strike if Asad turned over all of his chemical weapons. In
the same statement he
[[Page S6344]]
said he wasn't sure that would work or that he would ever be serious
about it, but he did say it. Russia, of course, immediately responded
by offering to broker a transfer of Syria's WMD to international
monitors.
After spending weeks trying to make the case for war, President Obama
has asked that the vote in this Chamber be canceled and is apparently
treating the Russian-Syrian proposal as a serious diplomatic
breakthrough. I would caution all of us--the American people and all of
our colleagues--to be skeptical, for good reason, at this lifeline
Vladimir Putin has now thrown the administration. I would remind the
President and our colleagues that Russia itself is not in full
compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention, nor is it even in
compliance with nuclear arms control obligations that are subject to an
international treaty. The litany of Russian offenses is long, but I
would remind President Obama that since he launched the so-called
Russian reset, Moscow has vetoed U.N. resolutions on Syria, sent
advanced weaponry to the Asad regime, stolen elections, stoked anti-
Americanism, made threats over our possible deployment of missile
defense systems; it has expelled USAID from Russia, pulled out of the
Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program; it has banned U.S.
citizens from adopting Russian children, and offered asylum to NSA
leaker Edward Snowden. In short, we have very little reason to believe
Moscow is a reliable diplomatic partner. The Russians are part of the
problem in Syria, not part of the solution. Let me say that clearly.
The Russians are part of the problem in Syria; they are not credibly
part of the solution.
Moreover, I am curious to learn how international monitors would
adequately confirm the disposal of chemical weapons by a terrorist-
sponsoring dictatorship among a ferocious civil war. While this strike
the President talked about might have been limited in his imagination,
if you are Bashar al-Asad, this is total war, because he realizes the
only way he will leave power is in a pine box. He knows that. This is
total war. I asked the President yesterday: What happens if, in order
to punish Asad, we intervene militarily and it doesn't work? In his
fight for his survival and the survival of his regime, he uses them
again in an act of desperation? The President said, We will hit him
again. Well, clearly, what had become a limited strike could quickly
spiral out of control into a full-blown engagement in Syria. I think
the President's own words suggest that.
But, of course, the Asad regime is the same one that refuses to
acknowledge the full extent of its chemical arsenal--and this is
something we will be hearing more about. It has bioweapons capability.
Bioweapons capability is actually a much greater threat to American
interests than chemical weapons, which are more difficult to transport
and much harder to handle. And this is the same dictatorship that was
secretly working on a nuclear weapons program before the Israelis took
care of it in 2007.
We have been told that however unfortunate President Obama's
``redline'' comment might have been, upholding his threat is about
maintaining American credibility. And I admit, American credibility in
matters of war and peace and national security are very, very
important. But America's credibility on the world stage is about more
than just Presidential rhetoric. It is about defining clear objectives
and establishing a coherent strategy for achieving them. In the case of
Syria, President Obama has not offered a clear strategy or clearly laid
out his objectives.
Given all that, I am not surprised that the American people do not
support the President's call for the use of limited military force in
Syria. Those are the calls I got in my office. As I went back to Texas,
I kept hearing people--who I would think under almost any other
circumstances would say: If America's national security interests are
at stake, then we are behind the President, we are behind military
intervention, but they simply saw an incoherent policy and objectives
that were not clearly laid out to obtain the result the President
himself said is our policy.
Well, the most recent experience we have had as a country with
limited war has been Libya, and I have heard the President tout that as
perhaps an example about how we can get in and get out. The 2011
military operation that deposed Muammar Qadhafi was supposed to be a
showcase example of a limited operation in which America led from
behind and still obtained its objectives without putting U.S. boots on
the ground. Unfortunately, the administration had no real plan for what
happened after Qadhafi fell.
We all know it was 1 year ago today in Benghazi when terrorists
linked to Al Qaeda massacred four brave Americans, including U.S.
Ambassador Chris Stevens. Today Libya is spiraling into chaos and
rapidly becoming a failed state. Earlier this month a leading British
newspaper reported that ``Libya has almost entirely stopped producing
oil as the government loses control of much of the country to militia
fighters.'' All sorts of bad actors, including terrorist groups, are
flooding into the security vacuum, and ``Libyans are increasingly at
the mercy of militias which act outside the law.''
Before I conclude, I want to say a few words about America's Armed
Forces and America's role in the world.
We all know and are extraordinarily proud of our men and women who
wear the uniform of the U.S. military. No military in history has been
more powerful. No military has ever been more courageous. No military
has been more selfless and fought and bled and died to protect innocent
people in far-flung places across the planet. No military has ever done
more to promote peace and prosperity around the world. I have every
confidence that if called upon to act our men and women in uniform will
do just that. They will perform their duties with the utmost skill,
bravery, and professionalism. But we should never send them to war
tying one hand behind their back and ask them to wage limited war
against a dictator for whom, as I said earlier, this is total war. This
is win or die. Military force is like a hammer, and you cannot thread
the needle President Obama wants to thread with a hammer.
I would like to conclude by saying that this debate--which is
important and serious and one the American people expect us to have--is
not about isolationism versus internationalism. Believe me, I am no
isolationist, and I fully support the global security role America has
played since World War II, since my dad was a POW. A world without
American military dominance would be, as Ronald Reagan noted, a much
more dangerous place. I believe peace comes with American strength.
However, it will be harder to maintain our global military dominance if
we waste precious resources, our credibility, and political capital on
hasty, misguided, unbelievably small interventions.
Once again, I would be willing to support an authorization for a
military strike against Syria if it met certain basic criteria I have
laid out. But I cannot support an operation that is so poorly
conceived, so foolishly telegraphed, and virtually guaranteed to fail.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Good afternoon, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for
25 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam President.
I rise to speak on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime
and the decision that is before the Senate on how to respond to such
inhumanity. I also come to the floor with the hope that the use of
military force will not prove necessary and that the proposal to place
Syria's chemical weapons program under United Nations control will, in
fact, be successful.
Last night, in my view, the President delivered a strong,
straightforward speech that directly outlined the current situation in
Syria. He asked that a vote by the Congress to authorize military force
against the Asad regime be delayed so that a strategy could be
developed with Russia and the United Nations Security Council that
would eliminate Syria's deadly chemical weapons program. I believe this
is the appropriate path forward, and I appreciate very much the
majority leader's holding off on bringing this resolution
[[Page S6345]]
for a vote so that negotiations can continue. Here in the Senate, there
are discussions going on about how to amend the resolution passed by
the Foreign Relations Committee to provide time for diplomacy.
I would also like to take a minute to give Russia credit for bringing
forward this plan for a negotiated solution to the conflict. I disagree
with the Senator from Texas. As the Russian Ambassador described to me
on Monday of this week, he said Russia is sincere, wants to see a
United Nations resolution, and supports the Geneva II process which
would accompany a negotiated settlement to Syria's civil war. Based on
my conversation with Ambassador Kislyak, I believe Russia's goal is
now, in fact, to eliminate these weapons, and I would point out that is
also our goal.
So I very much hope that the path to settlement--although
complicated, no doubt, but if well-intentioned by all participants, it
can be accomplished, and I deeply believe that. If the United Nations
Security Council can agree on a resolution to put this proposal into
practice, it would put the world's imprimatur on an important plan to
safeguard and then to destroy Syria's chemical weapons program.
Russia's responsibility to get this done is enormous, and they must
move with all deliberate speed. I think Russia and Syria must
understand that the only way to forestall a U.S. strike on Syria is for
there to be a good-faith agreement and process underway to put all of
Syria's chemical weapons--including munitions, delivery systems, and
chemicals themselves--under international control for eventual
demolition.
Syria's chemical weapons program is maintained and stored across
Syria in more than three dozen sites. There are indications that Syria
currently has chemical weapons loaded and ready for immediate use in
bombs, artillery, and rockets and already loaded on planes and
helicopters. All of it needs to be inventoried, collected, and then
destroyed as soon as possible if the effort is to succeed. This will be
a large and complicated process, and the agreement may take some time
to put in place. But if it can be done, we should take the time to get
it done right. At the same time, we cannot allow there to be so much
delay and hesitation, as has characterized some arms control efforts in
the past.
It is clear to me that the United States is moving quickly already.
Tomorrow Secretary Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
will meet in Geneva to discuss the specifics of how to move forward.
I cannot stress enough the importance of this process. Not only is it
a possible solution to the specter of future use of chemical weapons by
the Syrian regime and a way to ensure that extremist elements of the
opposition do not gain control of these weapons, but it also sets an
important precedent for the United Nations to act to resolve conflict
before there is large military confrontation.
But it should be clear by now that the Asad regime has repeatedly
used chemical weapons. So I would like to speak as chairman of the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and lay out some of the
unclassified intelligence that shows the regime was indeed behind this
largest use of chemical weapons in more than two decades. The
unclassified assessment is based on classified intelligence we have
seen on the Intelligence Committee and it has been available to all
Senators. So here is the case.
The intelligence community assesses today, with ``high confidence,''
that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons--specifically sarin--in
the Damascus suburbs in the early morning of August 21. This assessment
is supported by all 16 of our intelligence agencies as well as other
countries, including the United Kingdom and France.
The Obama administration has publicly laid out its case at an
unclassified level, and I have carefully reviewed the classified
information that supports those findings.
First, there is intelligence indicating that the Asad regime--
specifically its military and the Syrian Scientific Studies and
Research Center, which manages its chemical weapons program--has used
chemical weapons roughly a dozen times over the past year.
On June 13, 2 months before this latest attack, the administration
stated that it had completed a review of all available intelligence and
had concluded that the intelligence community had ``high confidence''
that the Asad regime used chemical weapons, ``including the nerve agent
sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times.'' This
followed similar assessments by France, the United Kingdom, Israel, and
Turkey earlier this year. In some of these cases the regime may have
been testing its delivery vehicles or various amounts of chemical
agents. Some were small-scale tactical uses against the opposition.
Perhaps Asad was just trying to find out how the world would react to
his use of chemical weapons.
It has been more than a year since top intelligence officials learned
of Syrian preparations to use sarin in large quantities. Since then, at
numerous other briefings and hearings, the Intelligence Committee has
followed this issue closely. On September 11, 2012--exactly a year
ago--while protests against our Embassy in Cairo were underway and the
attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi was imminent, I was again
briefed on the administration's plans should Asad conduct such an
attack.
So the attack on August 21 in Damascus was not a first-time use,
rather it was a major escalation in the regime's willingness to employ
weapons long held as anathema by almost the entire world population.
Let me lay out the intelligence case that the Asad regime used
chemical weapons on August 21. Much of this is described in a four-page
August 30 unclassified document entitled ``U.S. Government Assessment
of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21,
2013.''
I ask unanimous consent that the document be printed in the Record.
We know that 3 days before the attack of August 21, Syrian officials
involved in the preparation and use of chemical weapons and associated
with the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center were ``preparing
chemical munitions'' in the Damascus suburb of Adra. That is according
to the intelligence community.
The intelligence specifically relates to an area in Adra that the
regime has used for mixing chemical weapons, including sarin. The
Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating and present there from
August 18 to the early morning of August 21, and finished their work
shortly before the attack began.
Some of the intelligence collected on the preparations for the attack
is highly sensitive. So the details of the Syrian actions cannot be
described publicly without jeopardizing our ability to collect this
kind of intelligence in the future. But in numerous classified
briefings over the past 2 weeks, Members of Congress have been provided
with additional detail on the names of the officials involved and the
stream of human signals and geospatial intelligence that indicates that
regime was preparing to use chemical weapons. So we actually have
names.
It is from the specificity of this intelligence reporting that the
intelligence community has drawn its high level of confidence that the
regime was behind the use of chemical weapons. The strike began in the
early morning hours on Wednesday, August 21. It is beyond doubt that
large amounts of artillery and rockets were launched from regime-
controlled territory in Damascus and rained down on the opposition-
controlled areas of the Damascus suburbs. There is satellite imagery
actually showing this, as well as thousands of firsthand accounts that
began showing up on social media sites at around 2:30 a.m.
The barrage continued for 5 days, though the use of chemical weapons
appears to have been deliberately suspended by the regime after the
first few hours. Since the attack, physical samples from the area have
been analyzed. The intelligence community assesses with high confidence
that ``laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a
number of individuals revealed exposure to Sarin.''
More than 100 videos were posted online showing the effects of the
chemical weapons on hundreds of men, women and, most troubling,
sleeping children who were dead or showing the
[[Page S6346]]
signs of exposure to the nerve agent. At my request, the intelligence
community compiled a representative sample of 13 videos which have been
corroborated and verified. According to the intelligence community,
``At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos,
and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at general
times and locations described in the footage.''
These videos clearly show the suffering and death caused by these
weapons. The intelligence committee has posted these videos on our Web
site, www.intelligence.senate.gov. I would urge all Americans to look
at this. They are absolutely horrendous and should shock the conscience
of all humanity.
The videos show the physical manifestations of a nerve agent attack:
foaming mouth, pinpointed and constricted pupils, convulsions, gasping
for breath, all happening as the nervous system begins to shut down.
One video shows a lifeless toddler receiving emergency respiratory
assistance. Another shows a young boy struggling to breathe, gasping
while his eyes are swollen shut and covered in mucous. A third heinous
video shows rows and rows of bodies lined up in an improvised morgue.
Another shows a man foaming at the mouth and convulsing, both
indications of sarin exposure. It goes on and on.
Last night, the President urged all Americans to watch these videos
to see how hideous the use of these chemicals actually is. Seeing these
images firsthand makes clear why chemical weapons have been banned and
why Asad must be prevented from using them again.
What truly affected me was a video I saw of a little Syrian girl with
long dark hair who was wearing pajamas. The little girl looked just
like my daughter at that age--same hair, same pajamas, same innocence,
except the little Syrian girl was lifeless. She had died from exposure
to sarin, a chemical the world has essentially outlawed. For me,
watching the videos shows the abhorrence of chemical weapons. It shows
why we must do something. Fired into densely populated areas such as
cities, they have an indiscriminate effect, killing everyone in their
path and causing suffering and eventual death to others nearby.
We have evidence that the chemical attack was premeditated and
planned as part of the regime's heinous tactics against the rebels.
Specifically, there is intelligence that Syrian regime personnel were
prepared with gas masks for its people in the area, so it could clear
these areas in the Damascus suburbs that were attacked in order to
wrest control from the opposition. Additional intelligence collected
following the attacks includes communications from regime officials
that confirms their knowledge that chemical weapons were used.
Let me repeat that. Additional intelligence following the attack
includes communications from regime officials that confirms their
knowledge that chemical weapons were used. The official unclassified
intelligence assessment distributed by the administration states: ``We
intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately
familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were
used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N.
inspectors obtaining evidence.'' On the afternoon of August 21, we have
intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to
``cease operations.'' This is specific evidence.
To sum up the intelligence case, I have no doubt the regime ordered
the use of chemical weapons on August 21. I also have no doubt the use
of these weapons by the military and under the guidance of Syria's
chemical weapons team, Branch 450, operates under the command and
control of the regime, under the ultimate leadership and responsibility
of President Asad.
Let me move now from the intelligence case of Syria's use of sarin on
August 21 to the question before the Senate of how to respond. As I
said in the beginning, it would be my strong hope that the United
States and Russia can come to an agreement with other U.N. Security
Council members on a way to resolve this situation peacefully.
Not only is a peaceful solution preferred to the use of force, but if
Syria's chemical weapons program, including all of its precursors,
chemicals, equipment, delivery systems, and loaded bombs, can be put in
the custody of the United Nations for its eventual destruction, that
would provide a much stronger protection against future use.
It also sets an important precedent for the future for the world to
settle other disputes of this nature. I have urged the Obama
administration to take all possible steps to make this proposal work. I
appreciate the President's decision to ask us to delay any use-of-force
resolution so diplomacy can be given a chance. However, the Senate may
still face a resolution to authorize the use of force in the event that
all diplomatic options fail. Many of my colleagues have noted that the
threat of force has helped push forward the diplomatic option.
The Asad regime has clearly used chemical weapons to gas its own
people. I believe it will most likely do so again, unless it is
confronted with a major condemnation by the world. That now is
beginning to happen.
The regime has escalated its attacks from small scale ones that
killed 6 or 8 to 10 people with sarin to an attack that killed more
than 1,000. We know the regime has munitions that could kill tens of
thousands of Syrians in Aleppo or Homs. If the world does not respond
now, we bear the responsibility if a larger tragedy happens later.
Of course, it is not only Syria who is looking at preparing and using
weapons long banned by the international community. Iran is watching
intently what the world will do in Syria and will apply the lessons it
learns to its current development of nuclear weapons.
North Korea, which has refrained from using both the nuclear weapons
it has and the chemical weapons stockpile that actually dwarfs that of
Syria, may well use the Asad example to fire on South Korea. Remember,
we have 28,000-plus troops right over the border of the DMZ, within a
half hour.
More generally, countries around the world will see the United States
as a paper tiger if it promises to take action but fails to do so.
Former Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, whom I have great respect for,
who worked in both the Bush and Obama administrations, said exactly
that when he came out in support on the resolution for use of force
against Syria.
Gates said this:
I strongly urge the Congress, both Democrats and
Republicans, to approve the President's request for
authorization to use force. Whatever one's views on the
current United States policy towards Syria, failure by
Congress to approve the request would, in my view, have
profoundly negative and dangerous consequences for the United
States, not just in the Middle East, but around the world
both now and in the future.
I strongly believe the major powers in the world have a
responsibility to take action when a country not only slaughters
100,000 of its own citizens, makes millions homeless within Syria, and
makes millions into refugees in Turkey and Jordan, but especially when
it is willing to use weapons against them that have been banned as an
affront to all humanity because they are outlawed by a treaty joined by
189 nations representing 98 percent of the world's population.
If the United Nations does not act in such cases, I believe it
becomes irrelevant. If nothing is done to stop this use of chemical
weapons, they will be used in future conflicts. I am confident of that.
American servicemen in World War I were gassed with their allied
partners. In our briefings over the past week, the military has made
clear to us that if we allow the prohibition on chemical weapons use to
erode, our men and women in uniform may again suffer from these weapons
on the battlefield.
Chemical weapons are not like conventional weapons. Consider for a
moment how sarin, for example, can kill so indiscriminately. The closer
you are to the release, such as from a mortar or an artillery shell,
the more certain you are to death. It spreads over a wide geographic
area. It can shift from one neighborhood to another if the wind shifts.
During World War I, chemical weapons, primarily chlorine, phosgene,
and mustard gas were used by both sides of the war. They caused an
estimated 100,000 fatalities and 1.3 million injuries, 1,462 American
soldiers were killed, and 72,807 were injured by chemical weapons,
which represented one-
[[Page S6347]]
third of all U.S. casualties during World War I.
Since World War I, not a single U.S. soldier has died in battle from
exposure to chemical weapons. However, according to the United Nations
Office for Disarmament Affairs, ``since World War I, chemical weapons
have caused more than 1 million casualties globally.''
During World War II, Nazi Germany used carbon monoxide and pesticides
such as Zyklon B in gas chambers during the Holocaust, killing an
estimated 3 million people.
An additional document will be printed in the Record that details the
history and uses of chemical weapons around the world since World War
I.
These past uses of chemical weapons make clear that they should never
be used again and that the entire world must stand up and take action
if they are.
In Syria, the intentional use of chemical weapons on civilians, on
men, women, and children gassed to death during the middle of the night
while they were sleeping, is a travesty that reflects hatred and
increasing desperation of the Asad regime. I also believe there are
other chemical weapons that have been mixed and loaded into delivery
vehicles with the potential to kill thousands more.
Think about that. If Asad can slaughter 100,000 of his own people
without a second thought, what is he going to do next if we do nothing
to hold him accountable? What is he going to do next if the United
Nations does nothing? What is he going to do next if this effort to
reach consensus on the Security Council doesn't work? He will use them
again. I believe they are ready to go.
Why would the Asad regime load bombs with chemical weapons and not
use them?
If the United States does nothing in the face of this atrocity, it
sends such a signal of weakness to the rest of the world that we are,
yes, a paper tiger. That is going to be the conclusion in Iran and in
North Korea.
The answer is we cannot turn our backs. The use of chemical weapons
is prohibited by international law and it must now be condemned by the
world with action.
Albert Einstein said in a well-known quote: ``The world is a
dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but
because of the people who don't do anything about it.''
For more than 90 years, our country has played the leading role in
the world in prohibiting the atrocities of World War I and then World
War II. We are the Nation that others look upon to stop repressive
dictators and massive violations of human rights. We must act in Syria.
We cannot withdraw into our own borders, do nothing, and let the
slaughter continue.
I hope military force will not be needed, that we will allow the time
for the United Nations and the parties on the Security Council to put
an agreement together, and that the threat of force will be sufficient
to change President Asad's behavior.
If these diplomatic efforts at the U.N. fail, I know we are going to
be back here on the floor to consider the authorization for use of
military force, but I sincerely hope it won't be necessary.
When the Ambassador from Russia described Russia's intentions to me
on Monday, he told me it was sincere. Now the ball is in Russia's
court. Russia and the United States will need to come together, bring
the other parties together, and make it possible for the United Nations
to act so the United States won't have to.
I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical
Weapons on August 21, 2013
The United States Government assesses with high confidence
that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons
attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further
assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack.
These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and
geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open
source reporting. Our classified assessments have been shared
with the U.S. Congress and key international partners. To
protect sources and methods, we cannot publicly release all
available intelligence--but what follows is an unclassified
summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community's analysis of what
took place.
Syrian Government Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21
A large body of independent sources indicates that a
chemical weapons attack took place in the Damascus suburbs on
August 21. In addition to U.S. intelligence information,
there are accounts from international and Syrian medical
personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social
media reports from at least 12 different locations in the
Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly
credible nongovernmental organizations.
A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that
1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack,
including at least 426 children, though this assessment will
certainly evolve as we obtain more information.
We assess with high confidence that the Syrian government
carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition
elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that
the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on
August 21 is highly unlikely. The body of information used to
make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the
regime's preparations for this attack and its means of
delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack
itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the
differences between the capabilities of the regime and the
opposition. Our high confidence assessment is the strongest
position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short
of confirmation. We will continue to seek additional
information to close gaps in our understanding of what took
place.
Background
The Syrian regime maintains a stockpile of numerous
chemical agents, including mustard, sarin, and VX and has
thousands of munitions that can be used to deliver chemical
warfare agents.
Syrian President Bashar al-Asad is the ultimate decision
maker for the chemical weapons program and members of the
program are carefully vetted to ensure security and loyalty.
The Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC)--
which is subordinate to the Syrian Ministry of Defense--
manages Syria's chemical weapons program.
We assess with high confidence that the Syrian regime has
used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition
multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus
suburbs. This assessment is based on multiple streams of
information including reporting of Syrian officials planning
and executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory
analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of
individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin. We assess that
the opposition has not used chemical weapons.
The Syrian regime has the types of munitions that we assess
were used to carry out the attack on August 21, and has the
ability to strike simultaneously in multiple locations. We
have seen no indication that the opposition has carried out a
large-scale, coordinated rocket and artillery attack like the
one that occurred on August 21.
We assess that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons
over the last year primarily to gain the upper hand or break
a stalemate in areas where it has struggled to seize and hold
strategically valuable territory. In this regard, we continue
to judge that the Syrian regime views chemical weapons as one
of many tools in its arsenal, including air power and
ballistic missiles, which they indiscriminately use against
the opposition.
The Syrian regime has initiated an effort to rid the
Damascus suburbs of opposition forces using the area as a
base to stage attacks against regime targets in the capital.
The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus
neighborhoods of opposition elements, including neighborhoods
targeted on August 21, despite employing nearly all of its
conventional weapons systems. We assess that the regime's
frustration with its inability to secure large portions of
Damascus may have contributed to its decision to use chemical
weapons on August 21.
Preparation
We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian
chemical weapons personnel--including personnel assessed to
be associated with the SSRC--were preparing chemical
munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the
attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial
intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess
were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons
attack.
Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the
Damascus suburb of Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in
the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the
regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On
August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical
weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the
utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the
Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days
prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning
to use chemical weapons.
The Attack
Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime
executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus
suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections
corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck
neighborhoods
[[Page S6348]]
where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred--including
Kafr Batna, Jawbar, Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu'addamiyah.
This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime
controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90
minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared
in social media. The lack of flight activity or missile
launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used
rockets in the attack.
Local social media reports of a chemical attack in the
Damascus suburbs began at 2:30 a.m. local time on August 21.
Within the next four hours there were thousands of social
media reports on this attack from at least 12 different
locations in the Damascus area. Multiple accounts described
chemical-filled rockets impacting opposition-controlled
areas.
Three hospitals in the Damascus area received approximately
3,600 patients displaying symptoms consistent with nerve
agent exposure in less than three hours on the morning of
August 21, according to a highly credible international
humanitarian organization. The reported symptoms, and the
epidemiological pattern of events--characterized by the
massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the
origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and
first aid workers--were consistent with mass exposure to a
nerve agent. We also received reports from international and
Syrian medical personnel on the ground.
We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the
attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting
physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve
agent exposure. The reported symptoms of victims included
unconsciousness, foaming from the nose and mouth, constricted
pupils, rapid heartbeat, and difficulty breathing. Several of
the videos show what appear to be numerous fatalities with no
visible injuries, which is consistent with death from
chemical weapons, and inconsistent with death from small-
arms, high-explosive munitions or blister agents. At least 12
locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and
a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at
the general times and locations described in the footage.
We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the
capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms
verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information
associated with this chemical attack.
We have a body of information, including past Syrian
practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials
were witting of and directed the attack on August 21. We
intercepted communications involving a senior official
intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that
chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was
concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence. On the
afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian
chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations.
At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery
barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical
attacks occurred. In the 24 hour period after the attack, we
detected indications of artillery and rocket fire at a rate
approximately four times higher than the ten preceding days.
We continued to see indications of sustained shelling in the
neighborhoods up until the morning of August 26.
To conclude, there is a substantial body of information
that implicates the Syrian government's responsibility in the
chemical weapons attack that took place on August 21. As
indicated, there is additional intelligence that remains
classified because of sources and methods concerns that is
being provided to Congress and international partners.
____
Chemical Weapons Usage Since
World War I
1,462 American soldiers were killed and 72,807 injured by
chemical weapons in World War I, one-third of all U.S.
casualties during the war. No Americans have died in battle
from chemical weapons since World War I.
According to the United Nations Office for Disarmament
Affairs, ``Since World War I, chemical weapons have caused
more than one million casualties globally.''
1914-1918--During World War I, chemical weapons (primarily
chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas) were used by both sides
and caused an estimated 100,000 fatalities and 1.3 million
injuries.
During the war, Germany used 68,000 tons of gas, the French
used 36,000 tons, and the British used 25,000.
April 1915--Germany used chlorine gas at the Battle of
Ypres. This is the first significant use of chemical weapons
in World War I.
September 1915--The British used chlorine gas against the
Germans at the Battle of Loos.
February 1918--Germans used phosgene and chloropicrin
artillery shells against American troops. This is the first
major use of chemical weapons against U.S. forces.
June 1918--The United States employed a wide variety of
chemical weapons against Axis forces using British and French
artillery shells.
1918-1921--The Bolshevik army used chemical weapons to
suppress at least three uprisings following the Bolshevik
revolution.
1919--The British Air Force used Adamsite gas, a vomiting
agent, against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War.
1921-1927--Spanish forces used mustard gas against Berber
rebels during the Third Rif War in Morocco.
1936--Italy used mustard gas during its invasion of
Ethiopia. No precise estimate of chemical weapon-specific
casualties, but contemporary Soviet estimates stated 15,000
Ethiopian casualties from chemical weapons.
1937-1945--Japan used chemical weapons (sulfur mustard,
chlorine, chloropicrin, phosgene, and lewisite) during its
invasion of China. The Japanese were the only country to use
chemical weapons during World War II and did not use them
against Western forces. Estimated 10,000 Chinese fatalities
and 80,000 casualties as a result of chemical weapons.
1939-1945--Nazi Germany used carbon monoxide and
pesticides, such as Zyklon B (hydrocyanic acid), in gas
chambers during the Holocaust. Estimated 3 million killed.
1941--Mobile vans were used following the German invasion
of the Soviet Union to murder an unknown number of Jews,
Roma, and mental patients using exhaust from the vans to gas
victims. Vans were also used at the Chelmno concentration
camp in Poland.
1942--Nazi Germany began using diesel gas chambers at the
Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka camps in Poland.
Zyklon B was used to kill up to 6,000 Jews per day at
Auschwitz. Zyklon B was also used at Stutthoff, Mauthausen,
Sachsenhausen, and Ravensbrueck concentration camps.
1963-1967--Egypt used phosgene and mustard gas against
Yemeni royalist forces during the North Yemen Civil War
between royalists and republicans. Egypt denied their use,
but the Red Cross affirmed their use after forensic
investigation.
1975-1982--Las and Vietnamese forces used chemical weapons
against Hmong rebels. At least 6,504 killed.
1978-1982--Vietnamese forces used chemical weapons against
Kampuchean troops and Khmer villages. At least 1,014
fatalities.
1979-1992--The United States alleged that the Soviet Union
used mustard gas and other chemical weapons against mujahidin
rebels in Afghanistan. At least 3,000 fatalities.
1980-1988--During the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq employed mustard
gas and Tabun nerve agent. Iran retaliated with mustard,
phosgene, and hydrogen cyanide gas. Estimated 1 million
chemical weapons casualties.
1987--Libya allegedly used Iranian-supplied mustard gas
against Chadian forces. However, the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons did not find the allegations
sufficiently persuasive to send investigators.
1988--Iraq used hydrogen cyanide and mustard gas against
the Kurdish village of Halabja. Estimated 5,000 casualties.
1994--Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese terrorist group, released
sarin gas in Matsumoto, Japan. 8 fatalities and 200 injuries.
1995--Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas in the Tokyo subway
system. 12 fatalities and 5,000 estimated casualities.
Sources: Monterey Institute of International Studies, The
Nonproliferation Review, declassified CIA report,
Encyclopedia Britannica, The Washington Post, Reuters, New
York Times, NPR.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
____________________