[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 38 (Monday, March 5, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1334-S1335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SYRIAN CIVIL WAR
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today as Syria is about to enter its
eighth year of conflict. We have witnessed 7 years of displacement and
violence, 7 years of war crimes, and 7 years of Bashar al-Assad's
illegitimate grasp on power. To say that it is past time for Assad to
go or that it is past time for the conflict to be resolved dramatically
underestimates the horrible suffering and destruction the people of
Syria have experienced. In these 7 years, almost 500,000 Syrians have
been killed and more than 12 million have been displaced from their
homes.
This conflict has disproportionately affected children, as all
conflicts do. According to Save the Children, inside Syria, 7.5 million
children have lived their whole lives knowing nothing but war.
Emotional and psychological stress has manifested itself physically;
Syrian children now face an increase in heart disease, diabetes, and
depression. These children are growing up in refugee camps, with no end
in sight. This means the loss of their childhood and
[[Page S1335]]
of educational opportunities. I don't exaggerate when I say that
because of this war, an entire generation of Syrians will be both
displaced and disaffected in an already volatile region. Ignoring these
children ensures decades of instability to come.
In Eastern Ghouta this past week, we saw the most recent example of
the brutality of the Assad regime, aided and abetted by Russia and
Iran. While only just now making headlines, Eastern Ghouta has been
held under siege by the Syrian Government since 2013. This
neighborhood, which had supposedly been designated as a deescalation
zone, has been bombarded by Syrian Government forces armed with Russian
weapons. In just a few days, 500 civilians have been killed, and that
number is growing.
Years after the international community reached a consensus that
Assad had lost his legitimacy as the leader of Syria, he not only
remains in power but is more secure than ever. The United States has
not only failed to exert moral leadership in the face of Syrian
suffering but has also failed to show strategic leadership in the face
of a tangible threat to U.S. national security.
I have long called on both the Obama and Trump administrations,
warning that U.S. interests were not being represented in Syrian
negotiations, but this has never been more clearly illustrated than in
November of this past year, November of 2017, when a picture circulated
of Presidents Ruhani, Putin, and Erdogan shaking hands in Russia after
a round of negotiations to determine a potential resolution of the
Syrian conflict.
I have to ask, is it now U.S. policy to let these three dictate
policy in the Middle East--Ruhani, Putin, and Erdogan? The United
States was not there, nor were our European allies. The United States
is failing our own interests by ceding leadership in Syria to Iran and
Russia, whose national security interests often directly contradict our
own.
What do these bullying regimes want from Syria?
Let's start with Iran. Iran sees Syria as an investment in its
political infrastructure and its campaign for regional hegemony. It is
their ``land bridge'' from Tehran to Beirut, a weapons pipeline, a
training camp for Hezbollah. It is a practice ground for a future war
with Israel.
What about the Russians? The Russian Government, led by Mr. Putin,
has made clear that they believe all Syrian territory must return to
the Assad regime and to the Assad regime's control before political
reforms can be considered. Putin seeks a solution that shows that he is
the arbiter of events in the Middle East. Lately, foreign leaders--
including Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, President Ruhani, and
King Salman of Saudi Arabia--fly to Moscow instead of Washington. They
see a Russia that seeks to write the rules of international order and
an America that sits back, too enmeshed in our own political strife to
lead.
This is not the America that I know and that most Americans know. The
America I know does not believe that where you are born should dictate
where you live or die or if you spend your childhood in a refugee camp.
The America I know does not stand by while enemy nations threaten to
expand their spheres of influence. The America I know sees the
complexity of our own foreign involvements, understanding, for
instance, that ISIS cannot be fully defeated without considering the
context of the Syrian civil war. The America I know supports its
allies, like Israel, that share a chaotic border with a nation at war
with itself.
In 1963, President John F. Kennedy spoke at the Fort Worth, TX,
Chamber of Commerce on the challenges posed by the Soviet regime.
He said:
This country, which desires only to be free, which desires
to be secure, which desired to live at peace for 18 years
under three different administrations, has borne more than
its share of the burden, has stood watch for more than its
number of years. I don't think we are fatigued or tired. We
would like to live as we once lived. But history will not
permit it. . . . The balance of power is still on the side of
freedom. We are still the keystone in the arch of freedom,
and I think we will continue to do as we have done in our
past, our duty.
So said President Kennedy. He spoke to the paradox of our country
then and now, what we continue to face. If we are to remain the
keystone in the arch of freedom, we cannot become fatigued by the
responsibility to fight tyranny.
These are the very issues that should receive public debate as part
of the congressional consideration of a new authorization for the use
of military force, known by the acronym AUMF. We undermine our own
credibility when we continue to send our men and women into conflicts
that Congress has not authorized. Secretary Tillerson, our Secretary of
State, has indicated that he sees a need for a long-term U.S. military
presence in Syria; yet many of us believe that there is no purely
military solution to this conflict. Where is the strategy? we ask. I
would like to see the administration put forward a plan that
encompasses all components of this conflict--military, political, and
humanitarian.
When we ask our men and women in uniform to put their lives on the
line to protect our homeland and fight terrorism, we need to be willing
to back them up by doing our jobs here in Washington. Just consider
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvanians have made a substantial sacrifice in the
past 17 years of war as 288 of our brave servicemembers have been
killed in action in those 17 years and as almost 2,000 have been
wounded in action in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We owe it to these men and women to have a robust, bipartisan debate
about this strategy and a vote on an AUMF. We should also vote on
legislation to cut off financing for ISIS or any other terrorist
organization in the world. I have a bipartisan bill, the Stop
Terrorists Operational Resources and Money Act, the so-called STORM
Act, with Senator Isakson. I have a bill, as well, with Senator Rubio,
the Preventing Destabilization of Iraq and Syria Act, to promote
humanitarian aid and sanction the Russian and Iranian actors who are
destabilizing this region--all of the components of a comprehensive
strategy.
Let's have a serious debate on this critical national security issue.
We are not always faced with situations in which our moral obligation
and our strategic priorities lead to the same conclusion, but this is
one of those rare moments.
May it be said of us years from now, just as President Kennedy said,
that we do our duty to continue to be the keystone in the arch of
freedom, including helping the Syrian people, especially her children,
be free of Assad's brutality and bombing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________