[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 184 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8742-S8747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  PRESIDENTIAL STRATEGY TO DEFEAT ISIL

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, 70 years ago, a group of American 
leaders forged the rules-based international

[[Page S8743]]

order out of the ashes of World War II. Those who were there recall 
that they were ``present at the creation.'' We may well look back at 
2015 and realize we were present at the unravelling. We were present at 
the unravelling.
  At the beginning of this year, President Obama was still committed to 
degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL. He had warned: If left 
unchecked, ISIL could pose a growing threat beyond the Middle East, 
including to the United States. In 2015, that is exactly what happened 
in Paris and San Bernardino, and it will not be the last. I promise my 
colleagues that under this administration, with the present policy and 
lack of strategy, there will be other attacks on the United States of 
America. I deeply regret having to say that, but I owe it to my 
constituents and Americans whom I know and respect to tell them the 
truth.

  More than 1 year into the campaign against ISIL, it is impossible to 
assert that ISIL is losing and that we are winning. And if you are not 
winning in this kind of warfare, you are losing. Stalemate is not 
success.
  We asked the witnesses before the Senate Armed Services Committee the 
following question: Is ISIS contained? It is not. ISIS is not 
contained, contrary to the statements--bizarrely--made by the President 
of the United States literally hours before the attack on San 
Bernardino.
  This year our Senate Armed Services Committee held several hearings 
specifically focused on the threat of ISIL, including three hearings 
specifically with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. We heard about nine 
lines of effort. We heard about three ``arrrghs.'' We never heard a 
plausible theory of success, nor a strategy to achieve success. What do 
I mean by that? There is no time line on when Mosul, the second largest 
city in Iraq, will be taken. There is no strategy to take Raqqa. Raqqa 
is the base of the caliphate. Raqqa is the place where the attacks are 
being planned and orchestrated. We have news reports that they are 
developing chemical weapons in Raqqa. This is the first time that a 
terrorist organization has had a base, a caliphate, from which to 
operate. What has happened? They are expanding globally.
  By the way, they have lost some of their territory on the margin. 
Hopefully, one of these days, Ramadi will fall to our forces, even 
though there have only been a few hundred ISIL there for the last few 
weeks.
  The fact is that ISIL has expanded its control in Syria; it continues 
to dominate Sunni Arab areas in both Iraq and Syria; it maintains 
control of key cities such as Mosul, Fallujah, and Ramadi; and efforts 
to retake these territories have stalled, at least to some degree.
  Meanwhile, ISIL is expanding globally. On Tuesday, GEN John Campbell, 
commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, told the Associated 
Press that ISIL is seeking to establish a regional base in eastern 
Afghanistan as it attracts more followers and foreign fighters.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article detailing 
the AP interview titled ``U.S. general says the number of Afghan IS 
loyalists growing,'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From The Associated Press, Dec. 15, 2015]

      U.S. General Says the Number of Afghan IS Loyalists Growing

                          (By Lynne O'Donnell)

       Kabul, Afghanistan.--Supporters of the Islamic State group 
     in Afghanistan are attempting to establish a regional base in 
     the eastern city of Jalalabad, the commander of U.S. and NATO 
     forces in Afghanistan, General John Campbell, said on 
     Tuesday.
       In an interview with The Associated Press, Campbell said 
     that ``foreign fighters'' from Syria and Iraq had joined 
     Afghans who had declared loyalty to the group in the eastern 
     province of Nangarhar, bordering Pakistan.
       He said there were also ``indications'' that the IS 
     supporters in Nangarhar were trying to consolidate links with 
     the group's leadership in Syria and Iraq.
       The Islamic State group controls about a third of Iraq and 
     Syria. Fighters loyal to the group in Afghanistan include 
     disaffected Afghan and Pakistani Taliban who have fought 
     fierce battles with the Taliban in recent months.
       Afghan officials have said that IS supporters control a 
     number of border districts in Nangarhar and have a presence 
     in some other southern provinces, including Zabul and Ghazni.
       Until now, however, it was unclear whether loyalists in 
     Afghanistan had institutional links to the group's 
     leadership.
       Many of those who had declared allegiance to IS were 
     ``disenfranchised Taliban'' from both sides of the border, 
     Campbell said. But, he added, ``they've been reaching out. 
     I'm sure there are folks who have come from Syria and Iraq--I 
     couldn't tell you how many but there are indications of some 
     foreign fighters coming in there.
       ``But they don't have the capability right now to attack 
     Europe, or attack the homeland, the United States. But that's 
     what they want to do, they've said that's what they want to 
     do,'' he said.
       During the summer months, Taliban and IS loyalists fought 
     fierce battles in the far eastern districts of Nangarhar, 
     with residents reporting a range of atrocities, including 
     arbitrary imprisonment, forced marriages for young women, and 
     beheadings.
       The IS loyalists have said they want to absorb Afghanistan 
     into a larger province of its ``caliphate'' called Khorasan. 
     Campbell said the group wants to establish a base in 
     Nangarhar's provincial capital, Jalalabad ``as the base of 
     the Khorasan province'' and ``work their way up into Kunar'' 
     province immediately north.
       The first credible reports of an IS presence in Afghanistan 
     emerged earlier this year in northern Helmand, though 
     recruiters believed to have had links to the leadership in 
     Syria were killed by U.S. drone strikes in February.
       The presence in Nangarhar became clear in the summer, when 
     IS loyalists launched battles against the Taliban in the 
     border regions. For months, the Afghan forces--occupied with 
     fighting elsewhere--had let the two groups fight each other, 
     Campbell said. ``If the Taliban and ISIL want to kill each 
     other, let them do it,'' he said, using an alternative 
     acronym for the Islamic State group.
       He said that control of the four districts--Achin, Nazyan, 
     Bati Kot and Spin Gar--had seesawed between the two groups.
       The revelation in July that the Taliban's founder and 
     leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar had been dead for more than two 
     years has led to deep fissures in the leadership, and 
     infighting between rival Taliban factions that Campbell said 
     had left hundreds dead.
       Campbell, who took control of U.S. and NATO forces in 
     Afghanistan in mid-2014, said splits among the Taliban, who 
     have been trying to overthrow the Afghan government since 
     their regime was driven from power in 2001 by the U.S. 
     invasion, could make the fight even harder in 2016.
       ``The prize really is Kandahar, that's their strategic 
     goal,'' he said, referring to the southern province from 
     where the Taliban emerged after Afghanistan's vicious civil 
     war ended in 1996.
       Neighboring Helmand province, where most of the world's 
     opium is produced, is currently the scene of fierce battles 
     for control of strategically important districts, including 
     Marjah.
       Taliban fighters took control of the northern city of 
     Kunduz in September, for just three days before the Afghan 
     military, backed by U.S. forces, pushed them out.
       Campbell said he did not believe the Taliban had planned to 
     hold or govern Kunduz, but the psychological impact of the 
     city's fall had been enormous. Jalalabad, he said, ``is not 
     going to fall.''
       Afghan forces, ``challenged in many areas, understand the 
     impact of Kunduz,'' he said. ``I think they will make the 
     right adjustments so that it (Jalalabad) doesn't become 
     another Kunduz.''

  Mr. McCAIN. It says: ``Supporters of the Islamic State group in 
Afghanistan are attempting to establish a regional base in the eastern 
city of Jalalabad, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in 
Afghanistan, General John Campbell, said on Tuesday.''
  The Wall Street Journal reports that ISIL has expanded in Libya and 
established a new base close to Europe, where it can generate oil 
revenues and plot terror attacks.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal 
article entitled ``Islamic State Tightens Grip on Libyan Stronghold of 
Sirte''--the hometown, by the way of Muammar Qadhafi--be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 29, 2015]

       Islamic State Tightens Grip on Libyan Stronghold of Sirte

               (By Tamer El-Ghobashy and Hassan Morajea)

       Misrata, Libya.--Even as foreign powers step up pressure 
     against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the militant group 
     has expanded in Libya and established a new base close to 
     Europe where it can generate oil revenue and plot terror 
     attacks.
       Since announcing its presence in February in Sirte, the 
     city on Libya's Mediterranean coast has become the first that 
     the militant group governs outside of Syria and Iraq. Its 
     presence there has grown over the past year from 200 eager 
     fighters to a roughly 5,000-strong contingent which includes 
     administrators and financiers, according to estimates by 
     Libyan intelligence officials, residents and activists in the 
     area.

[[Page S8744]]

       The group has exploited the deep divisions in Libya, which 
     has two rival governments, to create this new stronghold of 
     violent religious extremism just across the Mediterranean Sea 
     from Italy. Along the way, they scored a string of 
     victories--defeating one of the strongest fighting forces in 
     the country and swiftly crushing a local popular revolt.
       Libya's neighbors have become increasingly alarmed.
       Tunisia closed its border with Libya for 15 days on 
     Wednesday, the day after Islamic State claimed responsibility 
     for a suicide bombing on a bus in the capital Tunis that 
     killed 12 presidential guards.
       Tunisia is also building a security wall along a third of 
     that border to stem the flow of extremists between the 
     countries. Two previous attacks in Tunisia this year that 
     killed dozens of tourists were carried out by gunmen the 
     government said were trained by Islamic State in Libya, which 
     has recruited hundreds of Tunisians to its ranks.
       This burgeoning operation in Libya shows how Islamic State 
     is able to grow and adapt even as it is targeted by Russian, 
     French and U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria as well as Kurdish 
     and Iraqi ground assaults in Iraq.
       On Thursday, nearly two weeks after Islamic State's attacks 
     on Paris, French President Francois Hollande and Italian 
     Prime Minister Matteo Renzi met in the French capital where 
     both said Europe must turn its attention to the militants' 
     rise in Libya. Mr. Renzi said Libya risks becoming the ``next 
     emergency'' if it is not given priority.
       In Libya, Islamic State has fended off challenges from 
     government-aligned militias and called for recruits who have 
     the technical know-how to put nearby oil facilities into 
     operation. Libyan officials said they are worried it is only 
     a matter of time before the radical fighters attempt to take 
     over more oil fields and refineries near Sirte to boost their 
     revenues--money that could fund attacks in the Middle East 
     and Europe.
       Sirte is a gateway to several major oil fields and 
     refineries farther east on the same coast and Islamic State 
     has targeted those installations in the past year.
       ``They have made their intentions clear,'' said Ismail 
     Shoukry, head of military intelligence for the region that 
     includes Sirte. ``They want to take their fight to Rome.''
       Islamic State is benefiting from a conflict that has 
     further weakened government control in Libya. For nearly a 
     year, the U.S. and European powers have pointed to the 
     Islamic State threat to press the rival governments to come 
     to a power-sharing agreement. Despite a United Nations-
     brokered draft agreement for peace announced in October, 
     neither side has taken steps to implement it.
       A new U.N. envoy, Martin Kobler, was appointed this month 
     to break the stalemate, part of efforts to find a political 
     solution to counter the extremists' expansion.
       ``We don't have a real state. We have a fragmented 
     government,'' said Fathi Ali Bashaagha, a politician from the 
     city of Misrata who participated in the U.N.-led 
     negotiations. ``Every day we delay on a political deal, it is 
     a golden opportunity for Islamic State to grow.''
       Since early 2014, two rival factions have ruled Libya, 
     effectively dividing the country. In the east, an 
     internationally recognized government based in the town of 
     Tobruk has won the backing of regional powers Egypt and the 
     United Arab Emirates. In the west, an Islamist-leaning 
     government based in Tripoli has relied on Misrata fighting 
     forces for political legitimacy.
       Islamic State militants have successfully taken on and 
     defeated myriad Libyan armed factions, including the powerful 
     militias from Misrata which were the driving force behind the 
     revolt that unseated longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 
     2011. Misrata, 150 miles west of Sirte, has recently come 
     under sporadic Islamic State attacks.
       Members of Misrata's militias, who are loosely under the 
     control of the western government in Tripoli, say they lack 
     the support to mount an offensive against Islamic State. 
     Earlier this month, the Tripoli government forced the Misrata 
     militias into a humiliating prisoner swap with Islamic State.
       ``There will be no meaningful action without a political 
     agreement,'' said Abdullah al-Najjar, a field commander with 
     the Brigade 166, an elite Misrata militia that engaged in a 
     protracted fight with Islamic State on the outskirts of Sirte 
     earlier this year. ``You have to know you're going to war 
     with a government that is going to back you.''
       This month, the U.S. launched an airstrike against Islamic 
     State in Libya, its first against the group outside of Syria 
     and Iraq. Officials said they believe the strike killed one 
     of the top deputies of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-
     Baghdadi. The deputy, Abu Nabil al-Anbari, had been sent to 
     Libya last year to establish the group's presence there.
       In recent weeks, a flood of foreign recruits and their 
     families have arrived in Sirte--another indication the group 
     is becoming increasingly comfortable in its North African 
     base, according to residents and activists from Sirte and 
     Libyan military officials.
       Islamic State has called on recruits to travel to Libya 
     instead of trying to enter Syria, while commanders have 
     repatriated Libyan fighters from Syria and Iraq, Libyan 
     intelligence officials said.
       ``Sirte will be no less than Raqqa,'' is a mantra often 
     repeated by Islamic State leaders in the Libyan city during 
     sermons and radio broadcasts, several residents and an 
     activist from the city said. Raqqa is the group's self-
     declared capital in Syria.
       Like its mother organization in Syria, Islamic State has 
     appointed foreign ``emirs'' in Sirte to administer its brutal 
     brand of social control. Music, smoking and cellphone 
     networks have been banned while women are only allowed to 
     walk the streets in full cover. Morality police patrol in 
     vehicles marked with Islamic State's logo and courts 
     administering Islamic law, or Shariah, as well as prisons 
     have been set up.
       With a population of about 700,000, Sirte was long known 
     for being Gadhafi's hometown and a stronghold of his 
     supporters.
       Soon after Libya's uprising ended more than four decades of 
     Gadhafi's rule, he was killed in Sirte by fighters from 
     Misrata.
       Earlier this month, Islamic State reopened schools in the 
     city, segregating students by gender and strictly enforcing 
     an Islamic State approved curriculum. On Fridays, the 
     traditional day of communal prayer, the group organizes 
     public lectures and residents are often herded into public 
     squares to witness executions and lashings of those who run 
     afoul of the strict rules.
       The seeds of Islamic State's growth in Libya were planted 
     after Gadhafi's ouster. In the almost exclusively Sunni 
     Muslim Libya, the Sunni extremist group exploited tribal and 
     political rifts that lingered after the strongman's death, 
     particularly around Sirte.
       Islamic State lured extremists from other groups under the 
     Islamic State umbrella.
       By June, Brigade 166, one of western Libya's strongest 
     armed brigades, abandoned a months long battle with the 
     militants on Sirte's outskirts. In August, Islamic State 
     cemented their grip on the city, bringing the last holdout 
     district under their control, officials and residents said.
       Islamic State crushed an armed uprising in August in three 
     days. It was sparked by local residents angered over the 
     group's killing of a young cleric who opposed the radicals. 
     Militants publicly crucified several people who participated 
     in the revolt and confiscated homes.
       The brutality moved the internationally recognized 
     government in eastern Libya to plead for military 
     intervention by Arab nations and a lifting of a U.N. arms 
     embargo on Libya in effect since 2011. But the support never 
     came.
       Unlike in Syria, the group has struggled to provide basic 
     services. Gas stations are dry and residents are expected to 
     smuggle in their own fuel--as long as it is not confiscated 
     by Islamic State.
       Hospitals have been abandoned after Islamic State ordered 
     male and female staffers be segregated. The ill must travel 
     miles to other cities for treatment, a trip that is often 
     accompanied by difficult questioning and searches at Islamic 
     State checkpoints.
       ``No services, just punishment,'' said Omar, a 33-year-old 
     civil engineer who fled Sirte after taking part in the failed 
     uprising against Islamic State. ``Sirte has gone dark.''
       Despite the challenges, Islamic State has big plans for 
     Sirte. A recent edition of their propaganda magazine, Dabiq, 
     featured an interview with Abu Mughirah al-Qahtani, who was 
     described as ``the delegated leader'' for Islamic State in 
     Libya. He vowed to use Libya's geographic position--and its 
     oil reserves--to disrupt Europe's security and economy.
       About 85% of Libya's crude oil production in 2014 went to 
     Europe, with Italy being the largest recipient. About half 
     its natural gas production is exported to Italy.
       ``The control of Islamic State over this region will lead 
     to economic breakdowns,'' the leader of the Libyan operation 
     said, ``especially for Italy and the rest of the European 
     states.''

  Mr. McCAIN. It states: ``Even as foreign powers step up pressure 
against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the militant group has 
expanded in Libya and established a new base close to Europe where it 
can generate oil revenue and plot terror attacks.''
  Libya is an oil-rich country--a very oil-rich country. If you let 
ISIS get control of Libya, my friends, they will have unlimited sources 
of revenue.
  The Wall Street Journal: ``Its presence there has grown over the past 
year from 200 eager fighters to a roughly 5,000-strong contingent which 
includes administrators and financiers, according to estimates by 
Libyan intelligence officials, residents and activists in the area.''
  By the way, during these debates, I will comment a little bit on it--
that those who are against any intervention cite Libya as the case for 
not going in. Facts are a stubborn thing. The fact is, Muammer Qadhafi 
was at the gates of Benghazi and was going to slaughter thousands of 
people. We brought about his downfall and walked away. If we had walked 
away from Japan and Germany after World War II, it would have 
collapsed. If we had walked away from Korea, where we still have 38,000 
troops, it would have collapsed. If we had walked away from Bosnia, it 
would have collapsed.
  I am telling you, my colleagues, we walked away. This President and 
this administration did not do the things necessary after the fall of 
Qadhafi to

[[Page S8745]]

build a democracy, and the people of Libya wanted it, and I can tell 
you that for sure because I was there. One of the great tragedies of 
the 21st century is our failure to act in a way to help the Libyan 
people transition from all of those years of being under a brutal 
leader.
  By the way, he was also responsible for the deaths of Americans in a 
bar in Berlin and an airliner being shot down. Yet we should have left 
him in power? Sure we should have.
  ISIL is operating in Lebanon, Yemen, and Egypt, and other radical 
Islamic groups, such as Boko Haram in Nigeria and al-Shabaab in 
Somolia, have pledged allegiance to ISIL. This appearance of success 
only enhances ISIL's ability to radicalize, recruit, and grow.
  There has been some progress. I was recently in Iraq, and the 
operation to retake Sinjar was important. Iraqi forces, as I mentioned, 
have closed in on Ramadi for weeks. They haven't finished the job. Our 
counterterrorism operations are taking a lot of ISIL fighters off the 
battlefield in Iraq and Syria. All of this represents tactical 
progress, and it is a testament to our civilian and military leaders, 
who are outstanding, as well as thousands of U.S. troops helping to 
take the fight to ISIL every day. I would like to point out that 
significant challenges remain.
  As a direct result of President Obama's decision to withdraw all U.S. 
forces from Iraq and squander hard-won American influence, the Iraqi 
Government is weak and beholden to Iran. I tell my colleagues, have no 
doubt what the dominant influence in Iraq is today: It is the Iranians. 
There was no more vivid example of this than when it was reported that 
Iraqi Prime Minister al-Abadi turned down Secretary of Defense Ash 
Carter's offer of new military assistance, including the use of Apache 
helicopters and Special Operations forces to help recapture Ramadi.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article titled 
``Iraq Declines Offer of U.S. Helicopters for Fight Against ISIS, 
Pentagon Chief Says'' from the New York Times be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Dec. 16, 2015]

       Iraq Declines Offer of U.S. Helicopters for Fight Against 
     ISIS, Pentagon Chief Says

                         (By Michael R. Gordon)

       Baghdad.--Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi of Iraq declined 
     to take up the Pentagon on its recent offer to speed up the 
     fight against Islamic State fighters in Ramadi with the help 
     of American attack helicopters, officials said on Wednesday.
       ``The prime minister did not make any specific requests in 
     connection with helicopters,'' Defense Secretary Ashton B. 
     Carter told reporters after he met with the Iraqi leader 
     here.
       Mr. Carter made it clear that Mr. Abadi had not ruled out 
     the use of the Apache helicopters in future operations, which 
     are expected to be especially challenging as Iraqi forces 
     look toward the battle for Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, 
     which was captured in June 2014 by the Islamic State, also 
     known as ISIS or ISIL.
       Mr. Carter also insisted that neither Lt. Gen. Sean B. 
     MacFarland, the American military commander who is leading 
     the campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, nor 
     the Iraqi prime minister believed that the Apaches were 
     needed ``right now'' to win back Ramadi, the capital of 
     Iraq's Anbar Province, which is the site of protracted 
     fighting between Islamic State militants and Iraqi ground 
     troops.
       But Mr. Carter told Congress just a week ago that the 
     United States had offered to have American-piloted Apaches 
     fight with Iraqi forces as the Iraqi Army sought to complete 
     its capture of the city. The United States, he noted, has 
     also offered to deploy American advisers with Iraqi brigades 
     on the battlefield instead of restricting them to bases 
     inside Iraq, another proposal the Iraqis have yet to accept.
       ``The United States is prepared to assist the Iraqi Army 
     with additional unique capabilities to help them finish the 
     job, including attack helicopters and accompanying advisers, 
     if circumstances dictate and if requested by Prime Minister 
     Abadi,'' Mr. Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
       The meeting between the American defense secretary and the 
     Iraqi prime minister underscored two factors shaping the 
     American-led campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq: the 
     Obama administration's reluctance to significantly expand the 
     role of American troops in Iraq, and the reluctance of Iraq's 
     Shiite-dominated government to accept highly visible forms of 
     American military support in the face of pressure from hard-
     line Shiite politicians and the Iranians.
       It also raised questions about the Obama administration's 
     plans to intensify its campaign against the Islamic State 
     militants. In recent weeks, the Pentagon has spoken of the 
     ``accelerants'' it is planning to introduce to hasten the 
     demise of the Islamic State. The Iraqi government, however, 
     has yet to embrace two of the important ``accelerants''--the 
     Apaches and the deployment of American advisers in the field.
       Mr. Carter disclosed the Apache offer to American lawmakers 
     after it had been conveyed privately to Mr. Abadi. Iraqi 
     officials said the public nature of Mr. Carter's statements, 
     which appear intended to reassure Congress that the Obama 
     administration was stepping up its efforts against the 
     Islamic State, put the prime minister, who has already been 
     weakened by a series of bruising struggles with his political 
     rivals, in a difficult spot.
       ``This is a very complex environment,'' General MacFarland 
     said, somewhat philosophically. ``It is kind of hard to 
     inflict support on somebody.''
       According to United States officials, the Pentagon's offer 
     to support Iraqi forces with American Apaches was more 
     qualified than it first appeared. Military commanders would 
     have the authority to use the attack helicopters if Mr. Abadi 
     agreed to their use and the risks of using them were judged 
     to be acceptable.
       The deployment of Apaches in riskier situations would 
     require further White House review, even if Mr. Abadi 
     approved, United States officials added.
       American officials also said it would take weeks to deploy 
     the advisers who would accompany Iraqi brigades on the 
     battlefield even if Mr. Abadi were to agree to their 
     presence.
       One important measure has been accepted in principle by Mr. 
     Abadi: a new American special operations task force, which is 
     to number fewer than 100. Seeking to reassure the prime 
     minister, Mr. Carter said the task force's operations would 
     require the approval of the Iraqi authorities. He suggested 
     that some of its missions would take place near the Iraqi 
     border with Syria, where they would receive less attention 
     than those carried out near the Iraqi capital.
       ``Everything we do, of course, is subject to the approval 
     of the sovereign Iraqi government,'' Mr. Carter said at the 
     start of his meeting with Mr. Abadi, which also included 
     Khaled al-Obeidi, Iraq's defense minister, and Lt. Gen. Taleb 
     Shegati al-Kenani, who heads Iraq's counterterrorism service.
       ``Our progress in Ramadi is a huge progress and added to it 
     the progress in Baiji,'' Mr. Abadi said in English, referring 
     to a town that is the site of a strategic oil refinery in 
     northern Iraq.
       American military officials have painted a generally 
     positive picture of the Iraqi military's push to take Ramadi, 
     but Iraqi troops were involved in pitched fighting on Tuesday 
     as Islamic fighters counterattacked.
       The city, which is believed to be occupied by several 
     hundred militants, has been surrounded by about 10,000 Iraqi 
     troops. Tens of thousands of civilians are believed to be 
     trapped in the town, and Islamic fighters have shot at some 
     who have tried to flee, according to American officials.
       In their Tuesday counterattack, Islamic State militants 
     took a bridge northwest of the city that spans the Euphrates, 
     which the Iraqi Army had previously occupied. At the same 
     time, militants sent several car bombs and a small group of 
     fighters to attack the Anbar Operations Center, the Iraqi 
     command that is overseeing the Ramadi campaign from north of 
     the city.
       Both attacks were beaten back as American airstrikes 
     enabled the Iraqi military to retake the bridge. Two Iraqi 
     soldiers were killed as were several dozen Islamic State 
     fighters, American officials said. By the end of Tuesday, 
     both sides were back where they had started. It was unclear 
     when Iraqi troops might break through the Islamic State's 
     belts of improvised explosive devices and other defenses and 
     push into the heart of the city.

  Mr. McCAIN. I met with Prime Minister al-Abadi in Iraq. He is a good 
man. He knows he needs this help, but because of the dominating 
influence of Iran and Shia militias in Iraq, he turned it down anyway.
  General McFarland, one of the greatest generals I have met--he is up 
there in the category of David Petraeus--is leading the fight against 
ISIL. He reacted with a very interesting comment. He said: ``This is a 
very complex environment. It is kind of hard to inflict support on 
somebody.'' What General McFarland is saying is that because of the 
Iranian dominant influence, the Iraqis, as a body, are reluctant to 
accept the help they need to retake the second largest city in Iraq. 
The second largest city in Iraq, Mosul, is under ISIS control, and he 
knows full well that Apache helicopters and Special Operations forces 
could help him do that. But who is telling him not to? The Iranians.
  When I was there, we met with the Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. al-
Abadi, and he said: If you Americans come and you lose one pilot or one 
plane, you will leave. That was the opinion of the Prime Minister of 
Iraq, and one of the

[[Page S8746]]

reasons--along with the Iranian influence--is because there is no trust 
or confidence of the United States in Iraq or in the region.
  It comes as no surprise that the training of Iraqi security forces 
has been slow. The building of support for the Sunni tribal forces has 
been even slower. ISIL captured Mosul in June of 2014, and at the end 
of 2015, ISIL still controls the second largest city in Iraq. How do 
you think the families of those brave Americans who have sacrificed 
themselves and those individuals who are still at Walter Reed feel 
after the sacrifices they made and the victories they won? Now, of 
course, we see all of that is gone--just a glimmering--thanks to the 
President of the United States withdrawing all of our troops in the 
mistaken belief that if you pull out of wars, wars end. They don't end. 
It is hard to talk to the Gold Star Mothers.
  Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that ISIL is still making $1.5 
million a day in oil sales. Worse, Reuters reports that ISIL has made 
more than $500 million trading oil, with significant volumes sold to--
guess who. Guess who ISIL is selling oil to. The government of Syrian 
President Bashar al-Assad. It is hard to make some of this stuff up, 
and it gets a little complicated.
  We are now making nice--and I will talk a little bit more about it 
later--with Bashar al-Assad and their stewards, the Russians and the 
Iranians. Meanwhile, Bashar al-Assad is buying oil from--at least $1.5 
million a day--from ISIL.
  Even as an Oval Office speech and a Pentagon photo op failed to 
reassure the American people, this administration has doubled down on 
its indecisive approach to ISIL, using limited means and indirect ways 
to achieve aspirational ends on a nonexistent timeline. The 
administration now admits we are at war with ISIL--wonderful--but 
proceeds at every turn to minimize any American role in fighting and 
winning that war. America has never waged anything we have called to 
war and then so profoundly limited our role in the hope that some other 
force will emerge to win it for us. The administration says we cannot 
``Americanize'' the conflict.
  I also want to point out that the President has a unique and really 
dishonest approach to those of us who have said for a long time that we 
have to have more involvement and predicted what would happen. 
Unfortunately, we have been wrong by saying, yes, the ``popoffs''--as 
he called us in a speech from the Philippines--want to send hundreds of 
thousands of troops. That is a total falsehood. I will repeat again 
what we have been asking for for years, and that is another 5,000 or so 
Americans on the ground in Iraq and a multinational force led by the 
Sunni Arab countries with European participation--I would hope that 
people like the French would join in a--about 10,000 of 100,000-person 
force to go to Raqqa and take them out. As long as Raqqa exists, they 
will be able to export this evil throughout the world, including to the 
United States of America. There is no plan by this administration to 
retake Raqqa. There is no strategy, and that is, indeed, shameful.
  The war against ISIL was Americanized when ISIL inspired terrorists 
who murdered 14 Americans on our own soil in San Bernardino. This 
attack should be a wake-up call and we need a strategy, as I mentioned. 
In Syria, there is no plausible strategy to achieve this goal on 
anywhere near an acceptable time line. We were briefed that it would be 
a year before they retake Mosul. There is no time limit on how they 
could even approach regaining Raqqa. There is no ground force that is 
both willing and able to retake Raqqa, nor is there a realistic 
prospect of one emerging anytime soon. The Syrian Kurds could take 
Raqqa but won't, and the Syrian Sunni Arabs want to but can't, partly 
due to our failure to support them.
  Meanwhile, the administration has continued its inaction and 
indifference and has allowed Bashar al-Assad to slaughter a quarter of 
a million people. Have no doubt who is responsible for these millions 
of refugees; his name is Bashar al-Assad, the godfather of ISIS. He is 
the one who has barrel-bombed thousands and thousands of his people. 
Bashar al-Assad used poison gas and crossed the redline, we might 
recall. It is Bashar al-Assad who continues the butcher of his own 
people.
  I will get to what Secretary Kerry has had to say in a minute.
  The administration continues its policy of inaction and indifference. 
It has allowed Vladimir Putin to intervene militarily and protect this 
murderous regime.
  My friends, the last time the Russians had influence in the region 
was when Anwar Sadat threw them out in 1973. Now they are back. Now 
they are major players in the Middle East. This is the headline from 
the Associated Press yesterday: ``Russian Airstrikes Restore Syrian 
Military Balance of Power.'' The airstrikes of the Russians have taken 
out significant capabilities of the moderate resistance--not ISIS but 
the moderates whom we had trained and equipped and we refused to 
protect.
  I quote from the Associated Press story, ``Russian Air Strikes 
Restore Syrian Military Balance of Power.''

       Weeks of Russian airstrikes in Syria appear to have 
     restored enough momentum to the government side to convince 
     President Bashar Assad's foes and the world community that 
     even if he doesn't win the war he cannot quickly be removed 
     by force. That realization combined with the growing sense 
     that the world's No. 1 priority is the destruction of the 
     Islamic State group, has led many to acknowledge that however 
     unpalatable his conduct of the war, Assad will have to be 
     tolerated for at least sometime further.

  Let's get this straight. Assad will be tolerated to continue to 
barrel bomb and slaughter innocent people. ``However unpalatable his 
conduct of the war. . . . '' This kind of Orwellian understatement not 
only obscures the truth, but it cripples the conscience. My friends, it 
cripples the conscience.
  Bashar Assad's conduct of the war, the barrel bombs, chemical 
weapons, slaughtering women and children, not only killed one-quarter 
of a million people, it is what gave rise to ISIL to start with, and it 
is what fuels them still.
  Secretary Kerry seems not to understand that fact. While in Moscow 
searching for ``common ground'' with Russia on Syria and Ukraine, 
Secretary Kerry said--and I am not making this up; I am telling my 
colleagues, I am not making this up--``Russia has been a significant 
contributor to the progress'' the world has made on Syria.
  Was Russia making progress when it bombed U.S.-backed Syrian forces 
fighting the Assad regime or was that when it took a brief pause from 
bombing Syrian moderates to indiscriminately drop dumb bombs in ISIL's 
territory in eastern Syria, killing untold numbers of civilians? Is 
that the Russian ``significant'' contributions?
  Secretary Kerry then said: ``The United States and our partners are 
not seeking so-called regime change.'' The focus now is ``not on our 
differences about what can or cannot be done immediately about 
Assad''--i.e., Dear Mr. Assad, here is a blank check. Here is your 
card. Do whatever you want to. Do whatever you want to. Continue your 
barrel bombing, continue your torture, and continue the war crimes that 
you have committed. You have only killed 250,000 of your own people. 
Drive some more into exile and murder more.
  At the beginning of this year, this administration still believed 
that Assad must go, but now, as one official said, ``the meaning of 
`Assad has to go' has evolved.''
  I repeat, the administration official said ``the meaning of `Assad 
has to go' has evolved.'' This kind of Orwellian double-speak has 
become all too common in the administration and is exactly why our 
allies and partners around the world are losing confidence in American 
leadership.
  A very seminal event happened the day before yesterday, my friends, 
that will be the best indicator of what I am saying. Thirty-four Muslim 
nations formed an alliance to fight terrorism; i.e., ISIL, and the 
United States of America didn't even know about it. They didn't even 
tell the United States of America that they were forming their own 
organization with their own strategy, their own tactics, to fight 
against ISIS? My friends, that is an incredible statement about the 
total loss of American influence and prestige in the region.
  I have had more than one leader in the Middle East tell me: 
``Sometimes we think that it is better to be America's enemy than its 
friend.''

[[Page S8747]]

  So why has the meaning of ``Assad has to go'' evolved? Because this 
administration was overpowered, outplayed, and outmatched. This 
administration consoled themselves with the mantra of ``there is no 
military solution'' rather than facing the reality that there is a 
clear military dimension to a political solution in Syria. That is what 
Russia and Iran have demonstrated. They have changed the military 
faction on the ground and created the terms for a political settlement 
much more favorable to their interests. I believe as a result the 
conflict will grind on, ISIS will grow stronger, and the refugees will 
keep coming.
  Unfortunately, America's troubles in 2015 were not contained in Iraq 
and Syria. Despite conditions on the ground, President Obama elected to 
withdraw roughly half of the U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of 
next year.
  Do you know the President of the United States, even when he 
announces a buildup, announces a withdrawal. So he sends the message to 
any potential enemy or any enemy we are engaged with: We are going to 
build up now, but don't worry, we are going to pull out. We will 
withdraw.
  So what happens? Here we are. The Pentagon says violence is on the 
rise in Afghanistan. The AP report says ``Violence in Afghanistan is on 
the rise, according to a new Pentagon report to Congress that says the 
Taliban was emboldened by the reduced U.S. military role and can be 
expected to build momentum from their 2015 attack strategy.''
  It is inevitable, I say to my colleagues, there will be greater 
violence in Afghanistan, an increase in Taliban activity, and--I am 
sorry to say--ISIS, who is already establishing a foothold there, will 
increase their presence. Meanwhile, the Iranians, in their attempt at 
hegemony, will provide weapons to the Taliban.
  This Senator will save the rest of my comments about what is going on 
with the Iran nuclear deal, about what the Iranians have already 
violated, and what continues with the Russian occupation of Ukraine.
  Our much respected leader in Europe, General Breedlove, has said that 
he expects increased military activity by Vladimir Putin in eastern 
Ukraine. He still has the ambition of establishing a land bridge all 
the way across eastern Ukraine to Crimea so he doesn't have to continue 
to supply by air and sea. We seem to have forgotten that over 8,000 
people have died since Russia's invasion, including 298 innocent people 
aboard Malaysia's Flight 17, murdered by Vladimir Putin's loyal 
supporters with weapons that were sent to Ukraine by Putin--not to 
mention the murder of Boris Nemtsov, one of the great leaders of the 
opposition, in the shadow of the Kremlin. The destabilization 
continues, even in countries as far away as Sweden. I will not go into 
that because the Defense authorization bill calls for the provision of 
defensive weapons to Ukraine.
  One of the more shameful chapters--although they have written more 
shameful chapters--but one that is really shameful is our failure to 
provide defensive weapons to Ukraine. There are Russian-supplied tanks 
in eastern Ukraine. All of us have seen the pictures of them. They have 
slaughtered many Ukrainians, and we refuse to give the Javelin, the 
most effective anti-tank weapon we have, to Ukrainians. It is beyond 
shameful.
  So I will not talk about China, which has reclaimed 400 acres earlier 
and now has reclaimed more than 3,000 acres in the South China Sea, and 
our one foray within the 12-mile limit, the Secretary of Defense failed 
to acknowledge before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  So, my colleagues, we depart on this holiday season, hopefully sooner 
rather than later, with a world in turmoil, with a world that because 
of a failure of American leadership now poses direct threats, as we 
just found in San Bernardino, to the United States of America.
  We saw too many dark days in 2015. It didn't have to be this way. It 
is still within our power to choose better courses. We must never be 
disheartened or resigned to a world where suffering and evil are always 
on the ascent. On the contrary, it is in our character as Americans to 
face adversity with hope and optimism. We must see plainly and fully 
the threats to our values in order to defeat them.
  As Churchill said, we recover our ``moral health and martial vigor, 
we rise again and take our stand for freedom.''
  I have no doubt America can succeed and will succeed.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

                          ____________________