[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 200 (Wednesday, December 19, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7892-S7893]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 SYRIA

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak briefly 
about the President's announcement today that he is going to be 
withdrawing 2,000 American troops from Syria.
  Let me be clear. I thought this was a bad idea from the start, 
primarily because our troop presence in Syria is not authorized by 
Congress. We have had that debate in many forums here, but I believe 
this Congress has never authorized the U.S. military to engage in 
hostilities against ISIS. I think it is an extrapolation of the 2001 
AUMF. It simply belies common sense. So we should never endorse 
military activity overseas, no matter what we think about the merits, 
if it is not authorized by this body.
  But we have also seen over and over again that our relatively meager 
military presence in the Middle East has never been enough to change 
the political realities on the ground. The training mission was a 
disaster. The weapons we gave to the rebels ended up in the hands of 
the people we were fighting. Ultimately, we never had enough firepower 
there to be able to meaningfully change the balance of power.
  But I will concede that the way the President went about making this 
decision makes our country an even bigger laughing stock than it 
already is in the region, and, frankly, that is pretty hard, because 
everybody is asking questions right now about why we pretended we were 
going to protect our Kurdish partners in the region if, on the eve of 
the Turkish offensive against the Kurds, we decide to pull out.
  It makes absolutely no sense to pretend for literally months and 
months that we are going to be the bulwark to protect the Kurds against 
the Turks and then right on the precipice of the Turkish offensive, we 
leave. Why would anybody believe us in the future if we give them our 
word?
  Again, I am speaking as someone who didn't support the intervention 
in the first place, but once you have made that commitment, why not 
follow through?
  Second, why pull the rug out from under our diplomats in the region? 
It is very clear that neither Jim Jeffrey nor Brett McGurk knew 
anything about this. In fact, they were just making plans and 
suggestions weeks ago to increase our military involvement in the 
region, and now they are having to explain why 2,000 troops are 
leaving.
  If you are going to make a decision like this, make sure the people 
who are working for you know about it.
  Third, why announce this pullout without answering any questions 
about it or without announcing an alternative strategy? Total darkness 
from the President and his national security team. An announcement--a 
statement made on Twitter and no rollout of a plan for how the United 
States is going to continue to try to keep the peace.
  So I agree with many of the criticisms that my Republican friends who 
have come down to the floor have complained about. This was done in a 
ham-handed manner that makes us weaker in the world. But forgive me if 
I have a few questions about why my Republican friends chose to speak 
up only now with questions about the President's Syria policy.
  Where was this outrage when the President of the United States froze 
millions of dollars in humanitarian funding that could have saved lives 
on the ground in Syria? If they care so deeply about the future of 
Syria, why

[[Page S7893]]

weren't the Republicans lighting up social media and down on this floor 
complaining about the fact that the President refused to forward badly 
needed humanitarian dollars to the region.
  Where was the outrage when the President effectively pulled the 
United States out of the peace process? Remember, the United States, 
under the Obama administration--whatever you think about Obama's 
strategy--was in the peace process, was a partner to try to figure out 
a way forward for Syria. Donald Trump, as has been his strategy 
internationally, pulled us out of that diplomatic conversation, left 
the diplomatic playing field to the Iranians, to the Russians, and to 
the Turks. Where was the outrage when the United States walked away 
from the negotiating table?

  How about the shutdown of the refugee program? Once again, if your 
focus is on the cataclysm of humanitarian disaster on the ground in 
Syria, why weren't there all sorts of Members of the Republican Party 
coming down to the floor and complaining when the President decided to 
not allow any more Syrian refugees--those fleeing terror and torture--
to come to the United States?
  What about outrage over the fact that the President proposed cutting 
the State Department by 40 percent--the State Department that is going 
to be in the driver's seat when we eventually get to the point of 
putting Syria back together politically?
  Why is there outrage only today? Well, here is the answer, I think, 
and it worries me. I think there is outrage today because many Members 
of the Republican Party still cling to this outdated, empirically 
disproved, fantastic notion that the American military can solve 
complicated, convoluted political problems in the Middle East.
  We have amazing men and women in the Armed Forces, but there are 
limits to what they can do. And history--especially the history of the 
last 15 years--tells us that big U.S. military presence in the Middle 
East often creates as many problems as it solves.
  The Republicans who are complaining about this make it sound as if we 
had a couple divisions in Syria. We didn't. We had 2,000 troops. We had 
2,000 troops compared to the hundreds of thousands of troops fighting 
on behalf of the Syrian regime, the Iranian militias, the Kurdish 
forces, the rebel forces, the remnants of ISIS's forces. Two thousand 
troops isn't enough to bluff. It isn't enough to gain a negotiating 
foothold. It is, frankly, just enough to keep faking it in Syria--doing 
just enough militarily to say that we are doing something to be able to 
sleep at night while never actually doing anything sufficient to change 
the balance of power. That has been the story of both President Obama's 
and President Trump's policy in Syria. We do just enough to convince 
the rebels that they should keep going but never enough to actually 
tackle Bashar al-Assad. All we have done is keep the civil war running 
and running and running.
  I have really terrible news for you all. Assad is going to win this 
war. He was always going to win this war because the folks who were on 
his side had much bigger equities--Russia and Iran--than the folks who 
were on the side of the rebels. Now, that really stinks, that Bashar 
al-Assad is going to win, but you have to make policy based on the real 
world, not on some world that you imagine.
  These neoconservatives are still--even after 4,000 Americans were 
killed in Iraq and 30,000 were wounded, they are still clinging to this 
notion that a couple thousand U.S. troops are going to be able to solve 
the problems in Syria. Listen. I get it. Restraint in the face of evil 
is really hard stuff. But hubris in the face of evil is worse.
  So what should we be doing? I won't spend too much time on this, but 
we should get out of the civil war. We should admit that we have just 
prolonged it instead of trying to end it. We should keep working with 
our partners and keep using airpower to keep ISIS on the run. We should 
rescue Syrians with a generous refugee program, both helping our 
partners in the Middle East rescue Syrians and bringing them to the 
United States when they pass our vetting program.
  We should stop angering our allies all over the world, but 
particularly in that region, and get back into the diplomatic game.
  Finally, we should stop believing that our only leverage in 
negotiations in Syria or anywhere else in the world is military force. 
Put up a promise of massive investment in Syria after a peace deal is 
signed--likely, frankly, costing a fraction of what we spent in Iraq--
and you will discover that you quickly get a seat at that table again.
  But it is time that we give up on this notion that these brave, 
capable American soldiers can fix these complicated, tribal, political, 
economic, and religious problems in the Middle East. They are brave, 
and they are capable, but there are things they can do, and there are 
things they can't do. Every time we put our troops in situations where 
they are doomed to fail, when we are not prepared to give them the 
resources to succeed, as was always the case in Syria--spare me this 
notion that 2,000 American troops were going to be able to fix Syria--
every time we put them in situations where they can't win, we undermine 
American influence, and we undermine the power of our military.
  I don't agree with how the President did this. Once you have made 
that commitment, boy, it doesn't make a lot of sense to pull the rug 
out from under our partners right as the tough stuff starts to come. I 
don't agree that he didn't do it in consultation with anybody in this 
place or anybody on his national security team. I think that his 
announcement today is ham-handed and embarrassing, but his instincts 
aren't entirely wrong on the question of what American troops can and 
can't do in the Middle East.
  I can't believe I am saying this. I think the President may have 
learned more than many of my friends in the Senate have.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized along with my 
colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, to enter into a 
colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.

                          ____________________