[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 44 (Monday, March 21, 2016)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E343-E344]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONDEMNING VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SYRIA

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. TULSI GABBARD

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, March 14, 2016

  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H. Con. Res. 121.
  Make no mistake, this is a War Bill--a thinly veiled attempt to use 
the rationale of ``humanitarianism'' as a justification for 
overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad. Similar resolutions were 
used in the past to legitimize the regime change wars to overthrow the 
governments of Iraq and Libya. I will have no part of it. I oppose H. 
Con. Res. 121 because I oppose more unnecessary, interventionist regime 
change wars.

[[Page E344]]

  We all know that Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria, is a brutal 
dictator. But this resolution's purpose is not merely to recognize him 
as such. Rather, it is a call to action. Specifically, it is a call to 
escalate our war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.
  For the last five years, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and 
others have been working hand-in-hand to overthrow the Assad 
government, supposedly for humanitarian reasons. But how has our war to 
overthrow Assad helped humanity?
  Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed. Millions have 
become homeless refugees. Much of the country's infrastructure has been 
destroyed. Terrorist organizations like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and others have 
taken over large areas of the country and are engaging in genocide. And 
now, the same people who are behind this war to overthrow Assad want to 
escalate that war, and this resolution is an attempt to gin up public 
support for such an escalation.
  This resolution urges the Administration to create ``additional 
mechanisms for the protection of civilians'' which is coded language 
for the creation of a so-called ``no-fly'' or ``safe zone.'' The 
creation of a ``no fly zone'' or ``safe zone'' in Syria would be a 
major escalation of the war. Such a measure would cost billions of 
dollars, require tens of thousands of ground troops and a massive U.S. 
air presence, and it won't work. Furthermore, it will likely result in 
a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia. 
Fortunately, President Obama has thus far resisted pressure to escalate 
the war in this way.
  The fact is that the main area in Syria where Christians, Alawites, 
Shiites, Druze, Yazidis and other religious minorities can practice 
their faith without fear of persecution is in the Syrian territories 
where Assad maintains control. Therefore, the overthrow of Assad would 
worsen the genocidal activities by ISIS, al-Qaeda and other terrorist 
organizations against Christians, Alawites, and other Syrian religious 
minorities.
  H. Con. Res. 121 could be used to lay the groundwork for the 
escalation of the present U.S. military action aimed at overthrowing 
the Assad government.
  Previous Congresses passed Iraq and Libya resolutions, which were 
used for remarkably similar ends in several ways. The Iraq resolution 
was introduced in 1998, and it called upon the United States to ``take 
steps necessary, including the reprogramming of funds, to ensure United 
States support for efforts to bring Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi 
officials to justice.''
  The Libya resolution went further, urging ``the United Nations 
Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to 
protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible 
imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.'' Both of those 
statements, while not legally binding, were a part of the public 
campaign that were later used to build support for U.S. military 
action.
  Similarly, H. Con. Res. 121 urging ``the Administration to establish 
additional mechanisms for the protection of civilians and to ensure 
consistent and equitable access to humanitarian aid for vulnerable 
populations'' could be used for similar ends by a future 
administration.
  Of course, there are many differences in the Iraq, Libya and Syria 
conflicts, as well as the military action taken. But if the U.S. 
learned nothing else in Iraq and Libya, we should have learned that 
toppling ruthless dictators in the Middle East creates even more human 
suffering and strengthens our enemy, groups like ISIS and other 
terrorist organizations, in those countries.
  It is undeniable that in both Iraq and Libya, humanitarian conditions 
today are far worse than they were before those governments were 
overthrown, and ISIS and other terrorist organizations are more 
powerful, causing even more human suffering.
  If the U.S. is successful in its current effort to overthrow the 
Syrian government of Assad, allowing ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and other 
terrorist groups to take over all of Syria, including the Assad-
controlled areas where Christians and other religious minorities remain 
protected, then the United States will be morally culpable for the 
genocide that will result.
  This is exactly what happened when we overthrew Saddam Hussein in 
Iraq. It is what happened in Libya when we overthrew Muammar Gaddafi. 
To do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome is 
insanity.

                          ____________________