Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 164 (Thursday, October 17, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 164 (Thursday, October 17, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5881-S5884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TURKEY AND SYRIA

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address the current
situation in Syria.
First, I welcome the Vice President's announcement of a cease-fire,
which will prevent further loss of life. I hope the agreement is
honored. But at the heart of this matter is a central question of why
these terms and assurances were not negotiated before the President
consented to withdraw our troops.
Let me briefly recount what has happened in the past 7 days since the
United States announced our withdrawal. The Kurds, suffering loss of
life and property, have allied with Assad, Russia has assumed control
of our previous military positions, and the United States has been
forced in many cases to bomb our own facilities to prevent their
appropriation by Russia and Turkey.
The announcement today is being portrayed as a victory. It is far
from a victory. Serious questions remain about how the decision was
reached precipitously to withdraw from Syria and why that decision was
reached.
Given the initial details of the cease-fire agreement, the
administration must also explain what America's future role will be in
the region, what happens now to the Kurds, and why Turkey will face no
apparent consequences. Further, the cease-fire does not change the fact
that America has abandoned an ally. Adding insult to dishonor, the
administration speaks cavalierly, even flippantly, as our ally has
suffered death and casualty. Their homes have been burned, and their
families have been torn apart.
We know the truth about our Kurd allies. They lost 11,000 combatants
in our joint effort to defeat ISIS. We dropped bombs from the air and
provided intelligence and logistics behind the lines. The Kurds lost
thousands of lives, and 86 brave Americans also lost their lives so
tragically.
It is argued that the Kurds were fighting for themselves. Of course
they were. That is the nature of an alliance. We fight together, each
pursuing our own vital interests. America leaves no soldier behind,
often at great cost in blood and treasure. We recover our dead and our
wounded, and we free our men and women who are held captive. This is a
matter of American honor and promise. So, too, is the principle that we
stand by our allies, that we do not abandon our friends.
The decision to abandon the Kurds violates one of our most sacred
duties. It strikes at American honor. What we have done to the Kurds
will stand as a blood stain in the annals of American history.
There are broad strategic implications of our decision, as well.
Iranian and Russian interests in the Middle East have been advanced by
our decision at a time when we were applying maximum pressure on Iran.
By giving them a stronger hand in Syria, we have actually weakened that
pressure. Russia's objective to play a greater role in the Middle East
has also been greatly enhanced. The Kurds, out of desperation, have now
aligned with Assad. So America is diminished, and Russia, Iran, and
Assad are strengthened.
So I ask how and why this decision was reached. I serve on the
Foreign Relations Committee, and given the Syria decision taken by the
administration, I might be forgiven for wondering why our committee
even exists. I say this because apparently the decision to leave Syria
was made without consultation with the committee or even with the
committee chairman and ranking member.
Just 3 weeks ago, our subcommittee held hearings to receive an
extensive analysis of the conditions and the way forward in Syria. It
was presented to us by the Syria Study Group, a bipartisan,
congressionally mandated commission tasked with providing an in-depth
assessment of the conditions in Syria and to provide recommendations
for American strategy going forward. So far as I am aware, the
administration made no effort to contact those who attended that
hearing or to speak with the Syria Study Group to be able to understand
the content in their extensive published report.
I ask whether it is the position of the administration that the
Senate--a body of 100 people representing both political parties--is to
be entirely absent from decisions of the magnitude just taken in Syria.
Some argue that we should not have been in Syria in the first place
because there was not a vote taken by the Senate to engage in war
there. I disagree. Congress has given the President legal authority and
funding to fight against terrorists in Syria.
However, for purposes of argument, even if one believed that no
authorization had been given, that is really irrelevant to the decision
as to the withdrawal once we have allied with a people--the Kurds--
committed to defend them, and together defeated ISIS. Once you jump in
the ocean to save a drowning soul, you don't turn around with the
excuse that you didn't have to jump in in the first place. It is a
matter of commitment.

[[Page S5882]]

Others argue that we should just get out of a messy situation like
this. Middle East, they say, has had wars going on forever; just let
them have at it. There is, of course, a certain logic to that position,
as well, but again, it applies only to the original decision as to
whether we should have gone into Syria. Once we have engaged and made
the commitments we made, honor, as well as self-interest, demands that
we not abandon our allies.
It has been suggested that Turkey may have called America's bluff--
telling the President they were coming no matter what we did. If that
is so, we should know it, for it would tell us a great deal about how
we should deal with Turkey now and in the future.
Some have argued that Syria is simply a mess, with warring groups,
subgroups, friends and allies shifting from one side to the other, and
thus we had to exit because there was no reasonable path for us to go
forward. Are we incapable of understanding and shaping complex
situations? Russia seems to have figured it out. Are we less adept than
they, and are our principles to be jettisoned when we find things get
messy?
The administration claims that none of these reasons are accurate.
Instead, the President has said that we left to fulfill a commitment to
stop endless wars, to bring troops home, to get them out of harm's way,
and perhaps to save money. I find these reasons hard to square. Why?
Well, we withdraw 1,500 troops in Syria, but we are adding 2,000 troops
in Saudi Arabia. All totaled, we have some 60,000 troops in the Middle
East.
Assuming for the sake of understanding that getting out of endless
wars was the logic for the decision, why would we take action so
precipitously? Why would we not warn our ally, the Kurds, of what we
were about to do? Why would we not give them time to also withdraw or
perhaps to dig in to defend themselves? Clearly, the Turks had a heads-
up because they were able to start bombing within mere hours. I simply
don't understand why the administration did not explain in advance to
Erdogan that it is unacceptable for Turkey to attack an American ally.
Could we not insist that together we develop a transition plan that
protects the Kurds, secures the ISIS prisoners, and meets the
legitimate concerns of Turkey, as well? Was there no chance for
diplomacy? Are we so weak and so inept diplomatically that Turkey
forced the hand of the United States of America--Turkey? I believe it
is imperative that public hearings be held to answer these questions,
and I hope the Senate will be able to conduct those hearings next week.
I note in closing that I also hope the cease-fire agreement is
honored and that Turkey ends its brutal killing, but I note that lives
are already lost and American honor has already been tarnished. We once
abandoned a redline; now we abandon an ally. We need answers. What has
happened in Syria should not happen again. And we, the Senate, must
take action to make sure that it does not.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the
situation in Syria. Let me commend my colleague Senator Romney for his
very thoughtful and very timely and very important comments.
We all recognize that the situation in Syria is highly fluid. I think
it is important to state the case with respect to the President's
decision to acquiesce to President Erdogan's offensive against the
Kurds. The President's decision is a disaster for our partners in the
fight against ISIS and United States foreign policy more broadly.
While I welcome the temporary cease-fire announced a short time ago
and hope that a permanent cease-fire can be achieved, it does not
absolve President Trump of his responsibility for his betrayal of our
Kurdish partners and his role in unleashing violence and instability in
northern Syria. It is not clear whether Turkey made any concessions as
part of the deal struck with the U.S. delegation or whether Kurdish
forces will comply. If not, I am concerned that additional violence is
likely to follow and we will have little leverage to prevent it. In
fact, there is a quote attributed to the Turkish Foreign Minister,
Mevlut Cavusoglu, by the White House reporter for CNN. She quotes the
Turkish Foreign Minister as saying:

This is not a cease-fire. We will pause the operation for
120 hours in order for the terrorists to leave. We will only
stop the operation if our conditions are met.

So, indeed, even this supposed cease-fire may not materialize as a
cease-fire.
But the reality is that the blood of many Kurds is on President
Trump's hands, and thousands of hardened ISIS prisoners could be let
loose as a result of his hasty and uninformed decision.
President Trump's decision to abandon our close partners also
strengthens the hand of Erdogan, Putin, Assad, and Khamenei. Those are
not friends; they are, in many cases, adversaries and antagonists.
Members of the administration claim that the U.S. Government opposed
the Turkish incursion, but the President's own actions and statements
make clear that he gave Erdogan a green light. The President ordered
our military to begin a phased withdrawal from Syria last December--a
decision that prompted the resignation of former Secretary of Defense
Mattis and that surely gave the Turks the impression that he would fold
when pressed by Erdogan. Not surprisingly, he did. In that phone call,
Erdogan was pushing against an open door. He knew it. The President
knew it. That is why the Turks went across the border.

Stating that we should let the Kurds and Turks fight it out because
of their longstanding grievances, as the President has said repeatedly,
betrays both our national security interests in the Middle East and our
own American ideals.
It is shameful that the White House's statement that was released
after the President's call with Erdogan did not even criticize the
planned Turkish incursion or warn of potential consequences if it went
forward. It wasn't until the following day, after a bipartisan and
international outcry, that the President began to express any concerns
about Turkish plans while at the same time reiterating his invitation
for Erdogan to visit the White House next month. It is impossible to
read the President's initial statements as anything but acquiescence.
Furthermore, the President's statements over the following days have
sought to distance the United States from the Kurds and the foreseeable
consequences of his decision with regard to ISIS and the humanitarian
challenges in northern Syria.
The violence we have witnessed over the last few days in northern
Syria has been the direct result of an impulsive President who has made
decisions that are counter to the advice of our national security
experts. President Trump has often expressed disdain for the career
military, diplomatic, and intelligence professionals our Nation relies
on to develop and implement sound national security policy. We are once
again seeing the ramifications of his incompetence.
The President's stunning ignorance of the complexities in the Middle
East was on full display over the weekend in a tweet in which he seemed
not to have an understanding of the location or identity of the
separate Kurdish groups with whom we have partnered in Syria and Iraq.
The Secretaries of Defense and State both insist they were consulted
by the President on this decision. Maybe so, but it is clear that he
didn't heed their advice or that of our national security experts. I am
not aware of any security experts who advocated for standing by while
the Turkish military carried out an offensive against our Kurdish
partners.
In fact, on October 2--just 4 days before the phone call between
Presidents Trump and Erdogan--the State Department's Special Envoy for
Syria, Joel Rayburn, publicly warned: We certainly think that a
conflict along the Turkey-Syria border would serve the interests of all
the bad actors in the conflict and in the surrounding region--whether
that is ISIS or al-Qaida or the Iranian regime or what have you.
That was President Trump's Special Envoy.
The President's capitulation to Erdogan runs directly counter to all
of the administration's stated objectives in Syria. The
administration's stated strategy is to, No. 1, defeat ISIS; No. 2,
force the removal of Iranian-aligned

[[Page S5883]]

foreign forces from Syria; and No. 3, achieve a negotiated political
settlement to the Syrian civil war in line with the United Nations'
resolutions.
The security and humanitarian catastrophe that President Erdogan has
unleashed with Trump's approval will make achieving any of these goals
nearly impossible. The violence in northern Syria over the last few
days has led to the displacement of at least 160,000 people, the
suspension of humanitarian assistance into affected areas, the escape
of an unidentified number of ISIS detainees, and the horrific killings
of unarmed civilians, including incidents that Secretary of Defense
Esper has described as potential war crimes.
Just weeks ago, at our urging, the SDF removed personnel from border
areas, relocated heavy weapons, and destroyed defensive fortifications
in northern Syria. They did so even in the face of a continued Turkish
military buildup along the Syrian border because they believed the
United States and Turkey had agreed to a security mechanism in good
faith that could avoid bloodshed. It seems that they were wrong to put
their faith in this administration.
The Turkish incursion into Syria has undermined years of effort
against ISIS by the United States and the international community.
Despite the elimination of the so-called physical caliphate, ISIS is
not defeated. Former Secretary of Defense Mattis correctly warned over
the weekend that ISIS will resurge if pressure against the group isn't
sustained.
Perhaps even more damaging than the current situation in Syria is the
long-term impact of the President's decision on our standing in the
world and our ability to achieve the goals outlined in the national
defense strategy of his administration. The President's shortsighted
abandonment of the Kurds is a strategic disaster that raises grave
doubts among our allies and our friends about whether the United States
under this President can be counted on to defend our shared interests.
Given the diverse national security challenges we face, we must
attract and rely upon partners who share our interests. Our military
leaders often promote the virtues of the ``by, with, and through''
approach, especially when it comes to counterterrorism.
Since 9/11, we have built partnerships with local forces throughout
the world--from North and East Africa, to the Middle East, and across
the Pacific--to enable efforts against violent extremist groups. We
have sought to apply exquisite capabilities only possessed by the U.S.
military to support local partners doing the preponderance of the
fighting and dying in service to our shared objective of containing and
defeating such violent groups.
Contrary to President Trump's assertions, we are not engaged in an
endless war in Syria. In fact, the Kurd's partnership with the United
States should be viewed as a model of how to leverage an ``economy of
force'' commitment of U.S. military capabilities to achieve strategic
effects, thereby obviating the need for large numbers of U.S. personnel
to be put at risk. In Syria, relatively small numbers of U.S. forces on
the ground enabled a Kurdish and Arab ground force of approximately
60,000 personnel known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF. With
our help, the SDF liberated millions of innocent civilians from the
violent oppression of ISIS and defeated the so-called physical
caliphate. Some have estimated that the SDF lost more than 10,000
fighters taking on ISIS.
It is true that many who joined the SDF did so to liberate their
homes from ISIS; however, it is also true that even after their homes
were liberated, the SDF--Kurds and Arabs alike--continued to pursue
ISIS all the way through the Euphrates River Valley, where the last
remnants of the physical caliphate were ultimately defeated earlier
this year.

Those in the SDF were not only fighting for themselves; they were
also fighting for us. They were fighting to help ensure that there were
no more ISIS-directed or -inspired attacks like those carried out in
Paris, Brussels, Istanbul, Orlando, and San Bernardino.
After the SDF successfully liberated the territory that was formerly
controlled by ISIS, it also maintained custody of more than 10,000 ISIS
detainees--including more than 2,000 foreign fighters--even when many
of their home countries refused to take them back. Given the sacrifices
of the SDF in the fight against ISIS, it was particularly insulting for
President Trump to imply that the SDF may now be releasing ISIS
detainees to get us involved, in his words, in the ongoing violence in
northern Syria.
As our military leaders will tell you, our partnership with the SDF
was not only built on our shared opposition to ISIS but also on the
trust established between our forces in their fighting shoulder to
shoulder against a common enemy. They deserved more from the United
States and President Trump in the face of demands by Turkey's
autocratic leader. Given all the SDF has sacrificed in furtherance of
the fight against ISIS and our partnership, our betrayal of their trust
is nothing short of appalling.
Again, just days before President Trump's fateful call with Erdogan,
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East publicly
stated: ``We, quite frankly, could not carry out our national defense
strategy if it weren't for partners like [the SDF].''
I fear that the President's impulsive abandonment of the Kurds has
done significant and lasting damage to the standing of the United
States in the world and has shaken the confidence of our allies and
partners. We are losing valuable partners in a region where the United
States has critical national security interests.
Congress and the international community must send a clear,
bipartisan signal to the President that we do not condone the Turkish
incursion into northern Syria or the President's decision to abandon
the Kurds.
President Trump must rescind the invitation to President Erdogan to
visit the United States in November. We should not welcome an autocrat
who is responsible for endangering our troops on the ground in Syria,
the release of dangerous ISIS fighters, the mass displacement of
hundreds of thousands of civilians, and violence against noncombatants,
which, if reports are true, may amount to war crimes.
The United States does not need to stand alone in condemning the
violence in northeastern Syria. Our partners in the counter-ISIS
coalition share our concerns about the damage the Turkish incursion has
caused to our efforts to defeat ISIS and the potential humanitarian
costs. The United States should take the lead within the United Nations
and NATO to organize efforts to denounce Turkey's actions and restrain
the strategic consequences. We must also redouble diplomatic efforts to
seek a negotiated settlement to the Syrian civil war that is consistent
with U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 2254 and that protects the
equities of the SDF and civilians who are living under their
protection.
Unfortunately, the greatest impediment to securing our national
security interests in northern Syria and bringing about an end to the
conflict there appears to be President Trump's inability to grasp the
strategic significance of his actions.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise to call attention to the dire
situation that continues to unfold in northern Syria.
Turkey embarked on a reckless and brutal intervention on October 9,
2019, ostensibly to clear northern Syria of terrorist elements. It has
ironically dubbed this operation ``Peace Spring.'' The departure of
U.S. forces in the days just prior to this incursion left nothing
between Turkish military forces and the predominantly Kurdish militia,
known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF. Up until the cease-fire
agreement that was announced today, the SDF bore the brunt of the
Turkish assault.
The Kurds are deeply stung by what they see as America's abandoning
them--this after a long, hard, and successful fight against ISIS.
At the height of its power, ISIS controlled territory larger than the
United Kingdom. As many Americans know, ISIS directed and inspired
terrorist attacks on our homeland, in communities across the United
States, and staged numerous attacks against our troops overseas. ISIS's
branches across the globe have conducted unimaginable atrocities,
including targeting Christians, Yazidis, Kurds, and others who

[[Page S5884]]

opposed ISIS's corrupt interpretation of Islam. Examples of these
atrocities are the heartbreaking stories of so-called Yazidi brides who
were forced into marriages with ISIS fighters. They were raped and
brutalized repeatedly and were forced to decide whether to abandon
their children or to make an escape. There are multiple stories of
ISIS's terror that has been inflicted on those with disabilities, such
as babies being suffocated simply for being born with Down syndrome.
The United States, together with a coalition of over 30 countries,
engaged in a campaign to rid the world of ISIS and to restore peace and
stability to that region. Yet it was not a nation-state that bore the
brunt of the fighting against ISIS. The Kurds and the Arabs who made up
the Syrian Democratic Forces took the fight to the heart of the
caliphate. With the help of U.S. Special Operations Forces and
airstrikes, the SDF liberated lands held by the terror group,
imprisoned thousands of terrorist fighters, and restored hope to
hundreds of thousands who suffered under ISIS rule.
In our fast-moving and quickly changing world, it is easy for some to
forget the terrible threat ISIS once posed while they were at their
most powerful, but it would be wrong to think we can now allow
ourselves to take our foot off of our enemy's throat.
Even now, ISIS cells are seeking to take advantage of the chaos in
northern Syria to reconstitute and once again pose a direct threat to
Americans right here in our homeland.
You cannot watch what is unfolding in Syria without being
fundamentally concerned about the security of our friends and our
neighbors. A recapitalization of ISIS is a threat to us all.
It is for this reason that I have introduced a resolution which calls
on the Department of Defense and the Department of State to provide a
plan within 30 days which will outline a strategy to ensure ISIS will
never again threaten Americans or our allies now or in the future.
This strategy will address the ongoing threat that ISIS poses
regionally and globally and will outline the plan to prevent an ISIS
resurgence, contain ISIS expansion, mitigate the threat ISIS poses to
the United States and our allies, and describe how our gains against
ISIS since 2014 will be further protected.
We cannot afford to take our eyes off of this vital task of ensuring
the lasting and irreversible defeat of ISIS. We must consolidate our
gains to rid the world of this terrible organization and insist on a
sound strategy to ensure our success to that end.
Too many of our partner forces and indeed American brothers and
sisters in arms have fought and died in this fight, and we must ensure
that those sacrifices were not made in vain.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________