[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 21 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S651-S654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICAN LEADERSHIP AND SYRIA
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, not surprisingly, the talks that are
commonly known as Geneva III, in an effort to stop the ongoing genocide
taking place in Syria, have now been ``suspended.''
I quote from this morning's Washington Post: ``Syrian peace talks are
suspended before they even really begin.''
That should surprise no one. The fact is that the situation on the
ground, thanks to our total lack of a coherent strategy or even a
serious effort, has resulted in Russian airstrikes, ensuring Bashar al-
Assad's continued strength. Along with the Iranians, along with
Hezbollah that the Iranians have brought in from Lebanon--they all have
given the overwhelming majority position to Bashar Assad, who is not
about to leave office with the advantage he has now obtained on the
battlefield, to a large degree because of Russian airstrikes that are
relentless and that have mostly targeted the Western-backed opposition
to Bashar Assad's rule. Those airstrikes, according to the Washington
Post, have proven sufficient to push beyond doubt any likelihood that
Assad will be removed from power by the nearly 5-year-old revolt
against his rule.
The gains on the ground are also calling into question whether there
can be meaningful negotiations to end the conflict Assad and his allies
now seem convinced they can win.
Let's go back about 4 years. Bashar Assad was about to fall. The
President of the United States said that it is not a matter of whether
Bashar Assad will fall, it is a matter of when. All the momentum was on
their side.
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, the Secretary of
Defense--then Leon Panetta--said that the departure of Bashar Assad was
``inevitable.'' And then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said
it was inevitable that Bashar Assad will leave.
So a policy which was doomed to failure--rejecting a no-fly zone,
rejecting robust training and equipping of those who were seeking to
stop the slaughter--has now resulted in what many now view as an
international crisis; that is, the refugee problem where millions of
refugees are flowing into European countries not just from Syria but
primarily from Syria, Iraq, and other countries as far away as
Afghanistan. So everyone--especially our European friends--is moaning,
and their hearts go out and they are trying to accommodate this.
This is not the cause of the problem; this is the result of a failure
of American leadership, a feckless American leadership, and a Secretary
of State--this Geneva Convention is not the first or the second but the
third time--this is the third time our Secretary of State has convened
a whole bunch of people in five-star hotels in Geneva, where, of
course, the result has been nonexistent because the facts on the ground
favor Bashar Assad, the Russians, and Hezbollah.
So what has happened? Now, for the first time since 1973, when Anwar
Sadat threw the Russians out of Egypt, the Russians now have a major
role to play in the Middle East. They now have protected their base at
Latakia. They now are conducting airstrikes in an indiscriminate
fashion against--guess who--not ISIS but against the moderates who were
fighting to overthrow Bashar Assad, while our Secretary of State calls
him up, has conversations with him, begs them to start peace talks, et
cetera. And it goes on.
I think sometimes we all get a little numb, but we shouldn't be numb.
We shouldn't be numb to 250,000 killed and slaughtered, chemical
attacks that indiscriminately kill men, women, and children. These
Russian airstrikes are pervasive in the areas where the moderate
opposition exists, and they are using what we call dumb bombs--not the
precision bombs--slaughtering hundreds of innocent men, women, and
children. Places are surrounded where people are starving to death, and
our Secretary of State calls for another meeting in Geneva. It is
absolutely remarkable.
I wish to point out again that according to the Washington Post
story, Secretary of State John F. Kerry scrambled to rearrange his
Thursday schedule after de Mistura--that is the U.N. guy--decided to
delay the talks. The article states:
``The continued assault by Syrian regime forces--enabled by
Russian airstrikes--against opposition-held areas, as well as
regime and allied militias' continued besiegement of hundreds
of thousands of civilians, have clearly signaled the
intention to seek a military solution rather than enable a
political one,''. . . .
Kerry repeated demands made by the opposition groups as
preconditions for negotiations. . . . [but] both the
opposition and human rights organizations have cited an
increase in Russian bombing over the past several days that
they said has targeted civilian areas, including camps for
displaced persons in the western part of the country.
Russia maintains that it is only bombing ``terrorists,''
but its definition of that word includes parts of the
opposition that has been fighting a civil war against Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad for more than four years, whose
representatives are among those on the opposition negotiating
team in Geneva.
How can we expect them to negotiate while the Russian airstrikes are
intensified? How can we possibly expect something positive to happen,
when clearly the momentum and the strength is on the side of the
Russians, the Iranians, and Bashar Assad?
Friends, this is another chapter in American history of humiliation
and a failure of leadership. Of course, all of that is no better
epitomized and symbolized than by what happened when the Iranians
captured two American vessels that happened to stray into their
territorial waters. Everybody should know that when a ship goes into
another country's territorial waters, the first thing to be done is to
go out and guide them out of it. It is against international law to
take them at gunpoint all over the world but particularly--all over the
Middle East is the picture of American servicemen and one woman on
their knees with Iranian Revolutionary Guards holding their automatic
weapons on them. This is an incredible act of arrogance and a
humiliation for our American sailors.
What is the most aggravating is the response by the administration
after this totally unlawful action and humiliation of American
servicemembers and sailors. The response by the administration was--and
I am not making this up--White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said
that the sailors were offered ``the proper courtesy that you would
expect.'' Being held at gunpoint on their knees with their hands behind
their neck is, in the words of the White House Press Secretary, ``the
proper courtesy that you would expect.''
The Secretary of State, John Kerry, offered his ``gratitude to
Iranian authorities for their cooperation in swiftly resolving this
matter.'' That is the American Secretary of State after a gross
violation of international law. Our American servicemen are put on
their knees by a bunch of two-bit Iranians.
Vice President Joe Biden described the incident as ``standard
nautical practice.'' The Vice President of the United States says that
when you put Americans on their knees and point
[[Page S652]]
weapons at them with evil intention, that is standard nautical
practice. What planet has the Vice President of the United States been
on?
Now, to cap it all off, this week the Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei
pinned the Order of Fat'h Medal to the chests of those who mistreated
and humiliated American personnel. These people were given awards and
medals by the Ayatollah Khamenei. The Obama administration has still
failed to condemn Iran's behavior for what it was, a violation of
international law and centuries of maritime tradition. According to a
recent article in the Navy Times, legal experts all agree that this
hostile incident represents a gross violation of international law.
So I ask my friend from South Carolina: Is there any explanation that
could possibly be understood about this act, a violation of
international law and the humiliation of American servicemembers? There
is only one reason; that is, they don't want to upset the Iranians.
They don't want to disturb the $100 billion or so that is going to the
Iranians as we speak while they buy weapons and toys all over Europe.
So here we have now seen American service personnel put on their
knees with guns to their heads, and the most important people in our
government praised the Iranians for their actions. I would ask my
friend, how else could you explain--not passivity, but--the absolute
endorsement by the Vice President of the United States and the
Secretary of State for this kind of humiliating behavior?
Mr. GRAHAM. I say to Senator McCain, I think it is a disconnection
from reality--trying to shape a reality that does not exist.
Can you imagine your good friend Ronald Reagan, if he had been
President, what the Iranians would have done?
Mr. McCAIN. Could I remind our colleague that some of our colleagues
recall that the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President of the
United States, the hostages that were being held from our Embassy in
Iran came home.
Mr. GRAHAM. This is about lack of respect for the Obama
administration, John Kerry, and everybody else in our government. The
Iranians did this, Senator McCain, I think for one reason--to show the
region they are not intimidated by the United States.
Mr. McCAIN. Or that they can intimidate the United States----
Mr. GRAHAM. Right, that they can test our resolve. They do it all the
time. They fired two missile tests in violation of existing U.N.
resolutions. The Obama administration did nothing about it. They
captured two boats. These are lightly armored naval vessels with two
50-caliber machine guns. One of them became disabled and they drifted
into Iranian waters. The Iranians reacted as if it was some kind of
invasion by America. They humiliated these sailors.
Instead of standing up for our naval personnel, basically we thanked
the Iranians for being so nice to people that they captured at gunpoint
in violation of international law, but it goes to a deeper point. The
Iranians are letting everybody in the region know they are not changing
their behavior with this nuclear deal: Don't mistake us having a
nuclear agreement with a behavior change.
The Ayatollah and his henchmen are still in charge. They are not part
of a family of nations. Since the deal has been signed, they fired
missiles in violation of international resolutions, they are on the
ground helping the ``Butcher of Damascus,'' Iranians are still the
largest state sponsor of terrorism, and this is just the cherry on top
of all that misbehavior.
One thing I do want to talk about--and I will get your view of this
because you are so knowledgeable. Syria has literally held on, and
250,000 people have been slaughtered in Syria by Bashar Assad and his
regime. Those people who took to the streets during the Arab Spring in
Damascus were from all different backgrounds and different sects. They
wanted to live in a country not run by Assad in such a brutal fashion.
His response to their plea for better transparency, democracy, and
economic opportunity was literally to shoot them down.
Now we have an all-out war in Syria. The radical Islamic groups have
moved into Syria. The caliphate headquarters of ISIL is in Syria. It
has been the biggest misjudgment since Munich by this administration.
They had Assad on the ropes 3 or 4 years ago and they didn't act, and
what you see today is a result of a failure to act.
What I find astonishing is that the Syrian people, who are being
slaughtered by the thousands, are being asked by the U.S. Government to
sit down with Assad and negotiate an end to this war. The Russians and
Iranians are all-in for Bashar Assad. The people we have trained to
replace Assad have been killed by the Russian President. Our President
hasn't lifted a finger. Now we have a Secretary of State basically
browbeating the Syrian opposition to go to Geneva and enter into peace
talks with Bashar Assad, who is in full control of his part of Syria. I
can't believe we would do this to the Syrian people. The Syrian
opposition called Senator McCain--this says a lot about you, my friend.
They were calling Senator McCain to pass on a message: You have been
our best friend. We are not going to sit down and talk with Assad until
the U.N. resolutions calling for his removal have been honored.
Our government wants a deal in Syria--regardless of the quality of
it--to say they stopped the war on their watch. They are now asking the
Syrian people basically to kowtow to the man who has killed their
families.
This deal with Iran is a nightmare for the region. You give the
Iranian Ayatollah a pathway to a bomb, even if he doesn't cheat, a
missile to deliver the bomb, and money to pay for it all. Now they want
to take the same negotiating team into Syria and lock into place Bashar
Assad's regime, which has slaughtered the Syrian people, give the
Russians and Iranians a foothold in Damascus through negotiations that
they could never have dreamed of a year ago.
I ask Senator McCain, what do you think the consequence would be of
any peace agreement as long as the Russians and Iranians are supporting
Assad and we are indifferent to the Syrian opposition in terms of their
military needs?
Mr. McCAIN. I think it is very possible that the Secretary of State
will call another gathering in Geneva. After all, this is only the
third. He has another year, and maybe we will have Geneva IV and V.
Mr. GRAHAM. What leverage do we have over Assad?
Mr. McCAIN. That is the point. There is no leverage, I say to my
colleague. Meanwhile, while the Secretary of State is pressuring the
Free Syria forces and threatening to cut off assistance to them, Russia
is escalating their bombing campaign and continues the slaughter of
innocent people. Meanwhile, there are also enclaves around Aleppo and
other places where people are literally starving to death--literally
starving to death. There are pictures, my friends, on the Internet, if
you would like to see it.
What does our Secretary of State do? He calls Lavrov. He calls Lavrov
and complains. Lavrov, of course--it would be very interesting to know
what is going through Mr. Lavrov's mind--but it is very clear that the
Secretary of State is a supplicant, and this incredibly weak economy,
with a brutal dictator in charge, is now achieving goals that have been
age-old ambitions of the Russians. They are now playing a major role in
the Middle East.
Mr. GRAHAM. I ask Senator McCain, may I read to you an exchange?
This is John Kerry 2 days ago:
``[T]here will be a ceasefire,'' Kerry predicted Tuesday in
Rome. ``We expect a ceasefire. And we expect an adherence to
the ceasefire. And we expect full humanitarian access.''
Two days later, the Russian bombing hasn't stopped and
thousands of Syrians remain starving.
Not only has the Russian bombing continued, Putin has sent in
advanced fighter jets to do the bombing.
Kerry said he was assured by the Russian counterpart
[Lavrov] the Russians would stop bombing.
When asked, Lavrov said, ``Russia's strikes will not cease. . . . I
don't see why these air strikes should be stopped.''
Whom is he talking to? The Russians are telling John Kerry to his
face: We are going to keep bombing. John Kerry keeps telling the world
they are going to stop bombing. In the meantime, Syrians are being
slaughtered and starved
[[Page S653]]
to death and we are fiddling while Syria burns.
Mr. McCAIN. I want to mention one other aspect of this with my
colleague, and that is the refugee issue.
It is surprising to many people in the world, this flood of millions
of refugees, not just from Iraq and Syria but Iraq and even as far away
as Afghanistan. Our European friends have treated it like maybe it was
an earthquake or flood or natural disaster. It was not a natural
disaster. It was a natural occurrence when the situation became so
terrible that people believed they couldn't stay and live where they
were.
Why did that happen? Because we watched the Russians, Bashar Assad,
Hezbollah, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard--we watched them commit
all of this slaughter in Syria. No one can live in Syria today without
fear for their very lives, unless they happen to be one of Bashar
Assad's allies.
So now we have this huge refugee immigration crisis, which sooner or
later we are going to have to be involved in, in some way or another,
and it is a result of the failed policies of this President of the
United States.
This President sat by and watched the chemical weapons use. This
President refused to keep a sustaining force in Iraq. This President,
when asked by his Secretary of State, his Secretary of Defense, and the
head of the CIA to provide a safe zone turned it down. I still say to
my colleague--and I would be interested in his views--that we still
could establish a safe zone in Syria, where these people could go, we
could protect them, and they wouldn't have to leave and flood Europe
and eventually try to come to the United States of America.
That would be the best thing we could do in the short term, and this
President refuses to do it.
Mr. GRAHAM. Well, let's get a little closer to the region. John
McCain and Lindsey Graham have been saying for 3 years now that if we
don't end the war in Syria--which means requiring the Islamic State, or
ISIL, to be destroyed with a ground component and not by the air
alone--we are going to get hit here at home and a Paris-style attack is
coming our way. This strategy to destroy ISIL will never work.
President Obama is trying to pass it on to the next the President. We
have been begging the President to change his strategy in Iraq and
Syria before we get hit here at home.
Another casualty of the war in Syria is the neighborhood itself.
There are more Syrian children going to primary schools in Lebanon than
Lebanese children. Our friends in Lebanon are being overrun by Syrian
refugees because of the Hell-on-Earth nature of Syria.
But one of our best allies in the entire world is the King of Jordan.
Let me tell you what he has experienced as a result of us as a nation
allowing Syria to fall completely apart. This was yesterday:
The leader of a key U.S. ally in the Middle East warned
Tuesday that his country [Jordan] is so packed with Syrian
refugees, many with ties to the Islamic State terror group,
that his nation has reached a ``boiling point.''
Sooner or later, I think, the dam is going to burst.
The bottom line is I have been saying this for 2 years now, along
with Senator McCain: If you don't end this war in Syria, one of the
victims is going to be the King of Jordan. And the King of Jordan says
that our welcoming nature has to come to an end.
Here is the lay of the land. Jordan cannot take any more. Lebanon is
overrun. The Europeans are pushing back, and you are going to create a
process where people in Syria have no place to go unless we help them.
They are going to be slaughtered. They are in between ISIL and Assad.
What we are suggesting is to create a safe haven inside of Syria where
they can go without being killed, raped, and murdered so they don't
have to go to Lebanon, Jordan, Europe or the United States.
If John Kerry and Barack Obama do not change their approach to Syria,
Syria is going to be the catalyst for a meltdown in the Middle East.
Their approach is going to allow the Iranians to control Damascus. Any
deal done in Geneva under these circumstances is going to have one
certain outcome: The Russians and the Iranians are going to win, and
the Syrian people are going to lose. If we don't destroy the caliphate
with a ground component soon--not just from the air--we are going to
get hit here at home. The center of the caliphate is in Syria. If we
don't bring this war to an end soon by getting rid of ISIL and Assad--
which would require both to end the war--Lebanon and Jordan are going
to fall.
So to the Obama administration, when you were Senators, you really
took it to President Bush. He made his fair share of mistakes, but at
least he corrected them. Senator Obama and Senator Kerry both opposed
the surge in Iraq.
On President Obama's watch, he was handed an Iraq that was becoming
secure and that was on a glidepath to stability, and he chose to
withdraw all of our troops--against sound military advice--to fulfill a
political promise. Three years ago, at the urging of Senator McCain and
myself, we had Bashar al-Assad on the ropes. His entire national
security team advised President Obama to arm the Free Syrian Army while
they were intact. That would have been the end of Assad, and Syria
would be in the process of healing itself. But President Obama said no
to his entire national security team. He drew a redline against Assad a
couple of years ago and said: If you use chemical weapons, I will act.
Assad used chemical weapons, and nothing of consequence happened. Assad
is still in power. He will be in power when Obama leaves.
In the meantime, Russia has introduced itself in the Middle East
unlike at any time since the early 1970s.
Now the Iranians are on the ground, fully behind Assad. The balance
of power has shifted. Assad is in a good place. The Syrian people are
in a lousy, terrible, horrible place. John Kerry and Barack Obama's
foreign policy is in free fall.
I will make a prediction--and I hope I am wrong--that if they don't
change their policies toward Syria, the region is going to have an
imbalance that we have never seen in our lifetime. An attack against
this homeland is coming. It is coming from Syria. It is being planned
as I speak. We didn't know exactly what they were trying to do before
9/11, but we were worried that we were going to get attacked by Al
Qaeda.
I can tell you exactly where the attack is coming from. It is coming
from Raqqa, Syria. It is being planned while I speak. Every day the
caliphate is allowed to exist is another day of danger and peril for
the United States.
So if President Obama and John Kerry do not change their policies to
destroy the caliphate sooner rather than later, we will be hit here at
home. If we don't get Syria in a better spot soon, Jordan and Lebanon
are going to be victims of this war.
To Senator McCain, I just wish to end with that thought.
Mr. McCAIN. Let me make a couple of additional points and then we
will yield the floor.
To go back, these refugees are putting a strain on Europe that may
basically lead to the dissolution of the European Union. You cannot
have so many thousands--tens of thousands or more people--flood into a
country with which they are totally unfamiliar without there being some
problems there. So the very fabric of the EU may be tested here.
But one of the things I want to mention to my friend is that the
apologists for the Obama Administration have constantly and
persistently pursued a dishonest line of interpretation of history, and
that is that after the surge was won--and it is a fact--at great
sacrifice, at enormous sacrifice we had Iraq stable. The attacks were
down. The Shiite militias were repressed. The battle of Fallujah had
been won at great cost. There was a bright future that could lie ahead
for Iraq, but it required a continuing American presence. That was an
absolute necessity. It was the same reason why we didn't leave Korea
after the Korean war, the same reason why we haven't left Bosnia, and
the same reason why we didn't leave Germany or Japan.
But the apologists in the liberal media--and we all know who they
are--are saying: Oh, they couldn't stay because they didn't have a
status of forces agreement through the Iraqi Parliament and it couldn't
be done. That absolutely made it impossible for us to say.
Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, could I interject?
Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
[[Page S654]]
Mr. GRAHAM. We couldn't have troops on the ground because Iraqis said
no. Do we have troops on the ground today, I ask Senator McCain?
Mr. McCAIN. That is the point. Now we have at least 3,500 troops on
the ground in Iraq.
Mr. GRAHAM. Where is the Parliament?
Mr. McCAIN. We don't have a status of forces agreement. Their
Parliament has not endorsed it. Where are our liberal friends on the
other side? Aren't they concerned that there isn't a status of forces
agreement and we continue to incrementally--a classic example of
mission creep--gradually increase our presence more and more.
Actually--and I don't use this line very often but these apologists,
particularly in the liberal media, the so-called commentators--they are
lying. They are lying when they say that we couldn't keep a sustaining
force there. We could, and we could have done it without the approval
of their Parliament, including the fact that we have troops in a number
of other countries where their Parliaments haven't approved a specific
status of forces agreement. So it is really aggravating.
But the reason why they tell this lie is because if it were really a
fact that at great sacrifice we had stabilized Iraq and it had a bright
future at that time, their calls for a complete withdrawal and the
President's announcement that the last combat soldier had left Iraq--
remember that? Remember that one of his underlings said: We are leaving
behind the most stable, prosperous, democratic Iraq in history. That
was the statement. I think it was Blinken or one of those guys. It was
great.
We have gotten everybody out of Iraq, just as the President promised
when he ran for President of the United States. But leading from behind
doesn't work. Just because you leave a conflict, that does not mean the
conflict is over.
Again, this morning, they are trying to make that same mistake in
Afghanistan, although I pray they have learned that they cannot go to
what the President originally announced--that they would go to an
embassy specific force of about 1,000. The question is how many and
what their missions will be.
So I think it is important to emphasize that this did not have to
happen. If we had kept that stabilizing force behind, you would never
have had Baghdadi break off from Al Qaeda and move to Syria and seeing
the things we are seeing today.
I am afraid my friend from South Carolina is right. In fact, I know
he is right. There will be further attacks on the United States of
America and Europe because it is inevitable. When Mr. Baghdadi controls
a large piece of geography from which he can train, equip, motivate,
and send people out to commit acts of terror, that will happen, and the
responsibility will lay at the doorstep of Barack Obama and his
minions.
Mr. GRAHAM. If I could, just to wrap this up, I wish we were wrong.
When the President decided to withdraw all troops from Iraq against
sound military advice, we cautioned--literally begged--the President
and the Vice President. We went to Baghdad itself to try to help with
this problem. I remember saying that I think all hell will break loose
because this is so irresponsible. Iraq is in a good spot, but if we
leave now, it will all fall apart. I hope I am wrong. Well, we weren't
wrong.
When the Syrian people took to the streets to demand more freedom and
our response was to ignore their plea, when the people of Iran went to
the streets and the Ayatollah shot them down and our President said
that he didn't want to discuss negotiations with the regime, when Assad
had his back to the wall and President Obama declined to take good
advice to arm the Free Syrian Army and the people of Syria to get rid
of their dictator, all the things that Senator McCain and I have
predicted have come true.
The point of being here today is that the worst is yet to come and,
God, I hope I am wrong because this is what I think is going to happen.
I think there is going to be an attack on our country that is being
planned as I speak, coming from Syria. If we went on the ground in the
region--not 100,000 U.S. troops but mostly people from the region with
some of us--we could destroy the caliphate and we could disrupt their
plans against our homeland, but we are not doing that.
If we don't change our strategy regarding Syria, we are going to lose
one of the best allies America has ever had, and that is the Kingdom of
Jordan, because it is being overrun by refugees. The whole seam of the
Middle East is splitting wide open.
I will say this. Everybody makes mistakes--Bush, Lindsey Graham, and
John McCain. The key is to adjust. The problem I have with this
administration is that they seem unable and unwilling to adjust. If
they don't change their strategy, we are all going to regret it. As bad
as it is today, the worst is yet to come.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I just add one other point to my friend from South
Carolina?
The President is very good at setting up straw men. He says that we
only have two choices--to send in a couple of hundred thousand troops
or to do nothing. Neither Lindsey Graham or I or any smart person I
know are advocating that.
What we are advocating is about a 10,000 American force providing the
capabilities of ISR training, forward air controllers and others, with
a large contingent of Arab countries that would then move to Raqqa on
the ground with the use of American air power.
Please do not be fooled by this constant barrage of untruths that are
being said about those of us that we want to send in hundreds of
thousands. We do not. This has to be an Arab coalition with the United
States a small part of it, and, by the way, have them pay for it as
well. With the proper American leadership and commitment and
credibility, which is totally absent now in the region, that could be
done. Otherwise, we will fight them there or we will fight them here.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The senior Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________