[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 169 (Thursday, October 24, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6139-S6141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2625
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it has been 2\1/2\ weeks since the
President announced he was abruptly withdrawing U.S. forces from
Syria--betraying our Kurdish allies and derailing the international
fight against ISIS in Syria.
In the course of one tweet, this President blindsided our allies in
the region--yes, the Kurds--but the Israelis and others as well. He
blindsided our diplomats and blindsided our military from the top brass
down to our forces who serve on the ground. Frankly, the only one who
seemed to know that this was coming was the Turkish President, Mr.
Erdogan.
As a result, brave men and women who have fought alongside the United
States are now at risk of being slaughtered by Turkish forces. Already,
Kurdish fighters and unarmed civilians have been killed by Turkish
armed groups--militias. Already, hundreds of ISIS detainees have
escaped from prison, and ISIS is being given the space and time to
regroup.
Simply put, we may be witnessing one of the most significant
counterterrorism setbacks in recent history.
With nowhere else to turn, the Kurds have aligned themselves with the
Assad regime. That is good news for one of history's most brutal
dictators--a man who gases his own people. It is also good news for his
allies in Iran.
No one has, perhaps, benefited more from this disaster than Vladimir
Putin. Just this week, Russia and Turkey agreed to a new joint strategy
in Syria, green-lighting Russian and Syrian forces to clear the border
region of any of our remaining Kurdish allies and, unfortunately,
expanding Russia's footprint in the Middle East.
The truth is that I believe the President's sudden withdrawal from
Syria without his having a plan and without there being serious
consideration for our Kurdish allies is a disaster that may haunt our
foreign policy for decades to come.
If this is how the United States treats its allies, how will anyone
trust the United States on a going-forward basis?
Frankly, I fear most of the damage may have already been done. No
tweet, no press conference, and no personal assurance from Erdogan or
anyone else can rebuild the years of trust and progress that have been
destroyed. The least we can do--and perhaps, unfortunately, the most we
can do--is to make sure those Kurdish allies who served alongside U.S.
forces as translators and in other military support roles are not left
to die in Syria.
That is why I have introduced the Syrian Allies Protection Act. This
legislation is similar to programs in the past which have granted
special immigration visas to Iraqi and Afghan nationals who have served
alongside U.S. forces. The truth is these Kurdish allies and their
families are now at risk because of their work with U.S. forces. They
are threatened not only by the Turkish incursion but also by freed ISIS
fighters and Assad regime forces.
This legislation would provide permanent American residence to Syrian
nationals who have worked for the U.S. Armed Forces for at least 6
months, who have obtained a favorable recommendation from a general or
a flag officer in the chain of command, and who have passed a thorough
background check and screening.
The legislation also directs the administration to evacuate eligible
individuals to safety. If their lives are at
[[Page S6140]]
risk by remaining in Syria, they can either be brought to the United
States or to a third country while appropriate vetting takes place.
This legislation will not reverse what we did to our Kurdish allies,
but it will show those who have worked with our military forces--in
many cases, we have heard of translators and others whom the American
forces left without having even said goodbye because they had to
withdraw so quickly--that the American people appreciate the profound
sacrifices they have made in their supporting U.S. forces in the fight
against ISIS. It would at least remove part of the sting.
Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged of S. 2625 and the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill
be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object,
ironically, the Syrian Kurds may be closer to having some degree of
autonomy or homeland than they have been in decades.
With the new arrangement--or rearrangement--of alliances, the Syrian
Kurds now will have an alliance with someone who will remain in Syria.
Whether you like him or not, the Assad government is there to stay.
There was never going to be a U.S. presence for long enough or one
great enough to preserve or to create a homeland for them. I think
there is every possibility, in alliance with Assad, that there will be
some Kurdish arrangement. It happened in Iraq. In Iraq, the oil
proceeds are shared. The Kurdish wanted more in Iraq. They didn't get
as much as they wanted, but they got some degree of autonomy within
their province.
I think that sort of encouraging the Syrians Kurds to abandon their
country is really premature and doesn't really recognize the fluidity
of what is going on on the ground there. There is actually the
potential, for the first time in 8 years, to break through to a peace
agreement. Peace agreements have been unable to be achieved in the past
because people have refused to acknowledge that Assad is staying. It is
easy to say Assad is all of the things that he likely is, but it is
harder to acknowledge that no matter who he is, he is staying and that
peace on the ground will, ultimately, for the Syrian Kurds, probably
come through an arrangement with Assad's regime.
There has been a huge diplomatic breakthrough. As much as we have all
of the talk of Sturm und Drang--that the world is ending and there is
going to be a Kurdish genocide--perhaps the opposite is going to
happen. I don't think we yet know, as no one can predict the future
with certainty, but it actually looks as if there has been a somewhat
reasonable withdrawal. You have the Syrian Kurdish generals now saying
they have agreed to the withdrawal. There is now in place, hopefully, a
long-term cease-fire.
So, while nothing is ever perfect in Syria and while nothing is ever
perfect in the Middle East, I think, rather than saying it is the end
of the world, we should say that this is a big transition, that this is
a big realignment of interests there, and that there is a possibility
that the Kurds could get a homeland.
The last thing you would want is to say to all of the leaders in the
Kurdish community, to all of the intellectuals, to those who speak
English, and to those who are open to western ways, ``Hey, come over
here, and abandon your country.'' It would be equivalent to France's
saying to George Washington during or after the war, ``Hey, guys. Hey,
Founding Fathers. Why don't you all come to France?'' It is not a good
notion to ask the leaders of a country and a movement to leave and
abandon their country.
With that, I respectfully object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I disagree with my friend from Kentucky
about what may or may not happen.
I believe that one thing we agree with him on is that we have not
often had well-organized plans in the Middle East.
The unique thing about our alliance with the Kurds was that after
trying in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the region to find
allies who would actually stand up and fight, in the Kurds, we found
those allies, and they did a remarkable job dismantling ISIS.
Now, the prognostication of the Senator from Kentucky I don't agree
with it, but time will tell. The one area, though, and what my
legislation would have done and where I am disappointed we were not
able to move forward on, is regardless of the changed circumstances
that the Assad regime may have in terms of treating people with more
respect or the Turkish militias, which we have already seen evidence of
their killing of Kurdish fighters, the one group--the one group I think
that it is probably safe to say will be the targets of both the
Syrians, the Turks--the militias--will be those Kurdish individuals who
worked directly for the U.S. military.
Even if the prognostication of the Senator from Kentucky plays out on
a more macro basis, I don't think anyone with a straight face can say
the Kurdish translators, who 2 weeks ago were working for the American
forces, will not be victims of--whether it be Turkish, Syrian, Russian,
or other--aggression.
I think it would have been the right thing. I am going to continue to
try to find ways to bring this legislation to the floor. I know it will
be broadly bipartisan supported. I hope we will have a chance to
revisit this.
I don't think we can ever fully reverse the actions this President
has taken, but at least in terms of these transfers--I am not talking
about taking the whole Kurdish leadership--but these, generally, men
who 2 weeks ago were working for the American military, I think we owe
them a greater debt of obligation than to simply say good luck.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I think one of the interesting things about
the Kurdish situation and about Syria in general is how quickly the
Kurds and Assad actually did align.
If you watched the war over the last 8 years, the Kurds and Assad
have largely not fought each other. There isn't a great deal of the
blood sort of lust or curdling animosity between the two, and it was
actually pretty remarkable how quickly they came together.
One of the things is we think we are doing best, and we try to do the
best when we insert ourselves in the Middle East, but sometimes we get
unintended consequences.
So we have been there. We want peace, but we refuse to allow the
Kurds to talk to Assad. There is a stalemated civil war that has gone
on 8 years. Had we never been involved, Assad likely would have crushed
the rebellion in 6 months, maybe 500,000 people wouldn't have died,
maybe 3 million people wouldn't have left, and you would still have a
dictator.
Instead, we have 500,000 people dead, 3 million refugees, and we
still have a dictator.
So I think we need to question our strategy as to what our intended
goal is and what ends up happening.
Syria is an utter disaster but made no better by our intervention,
the Saudis' intervention, and the Qataris' intervention.
There is a great deal of unknowns as to whether the Sunni extremists
who were supported by the Saudis, Qataris, and sometimes us would
actually be more humanitarian or more for human rights than Assad is.
I think we can agree that Assad has abused his people, has used
chemical weapons, et cetera, et cetera, but on the other side were
Sunni extremists allied with the ideas of radical Islam, with radical
jihad, with the things that led to 9/11.
So it is a very complicated situation over there, but I think we
cannot say with certainty that there will not be a deal that sticks,
actually, between Assad and the Kurds.
If the Kurds want a homeland and they believe Assad is staying, it
makes all the sense in the world for them to work together. If Assad
wants to actually protect that region of north Syria, either from
Turkey or from others, and the Kurds are willing to help him do it,
[[Page S6141]]
the Kurds have proven they are good fighters.
The Kurds would probably have to acknowledge there is a greater Syria
and that they are part of it. If they want to break off from Syria,
there will be continual war. If they are able to make an arrangement
with Assad, there is a chance that there could be an oil-sharing
arrangement like we have in Iraq.
The bottom line is, we sometimes see the world in black-and-white
terms and think we can get Thomas Jefferson in Syria or in Libya or in
Iraq, but what happens is, time and time again, we topple a dictator,
we get chaos, we get more terrorism. ISIS sprang out of the vacuum that
was Iraq after a government that was incapable of doing it after we get
rid of the same. The same thing happened when we got rid of Qadhafi in
Libya. I think we need to rethink our approach to the Middle East.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I will not belabor the point. I know my friend from
Connecticut is here to raise another issue.
I don't agree with the analysis of the Senator from Kentucky. I hope
he proves to be right. I would agree with him; sometimes our notion
that we are going to find Thomas Jefferson to rebuild these countries
has not proven to be the case.
This legislation I am proposing is not broad policy changing; it is
simply saying let's look at a very limited universe of individuals who
2 weeks ago were working with the American military.
My fear is, at least in terms of how those translators and their
families will be viewed by both the Turks and by the Assad forces, that
they will not be viewed as Thomas Jeffersons, but they will be viewed
as Benedict Arnolds, and my fear is their fate will be on our hands.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.