[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4519-4520]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 LIBYA

  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to take time today to address the ongoing 
situation in Libya. Last night, the President made a strong defense of 
our military action in Libya. I welcome his remarks, and I appreciate 
that he explained why this intervention was both right and necessary, 
especially in light of the unprecedented democratic awakening that is 
now sweeping the broader Middle East.
  There has been much criticism of the President's handling of the 
situation in Libya--some legitimate, some not. But the fact is, because 
we did act, the United States and our coalition partners averted a 
strategic and humanitarian disaster in Libya.
  Even as we seek adjustments to U.S. policy where appropriate to 
ensure that we accomplish the U.S. goal as stated by the President of 
forcing Qadhafi to leave power, I believe the President's decision to 
intervene in Libya deserves strong bipartisan support in Congress and 
among all Americans.
  It is worth remembering, especially for the critics of this 
intervention, exactly what we would be facing in Libya now had we not 
taken action. Just over 1 week ago, Qadhafi was bearing down on 
Benghazi, a city of 700,000 people, and the main seat of the Libyan 
opposition, as well as the provisional government that has now emerged.
  Qadhafi pledged in his words: No mercy for these people. He pledged 
to go house to house, to crush everyone opposed to him. Had we not 
taken action in Libya, Benghazi would now be remembered in the same 
breath as Srebrenica, a scene of mass slaughter and a source of 
international shame.
  Libyan refugees would now be streaming into Egypt and Tunisia 
destabilizing those critical countries during their already daunting 
political transitions. If we had allowed Qadhafi to slaughter Arabs and 
Muslims in Benghazi who were pleading for the U.S. military to rescue 
them, America's moral standing in the broader Middle East would have 
been devastated. Al-Qaida and other violent extremists would have 
exploited the resulting chaos and hopelessness. The forces of 
counterrevolution in the region would have gotten the message that the 
world would tolerate the violent oppression of peaceful demonstrations 
for universal rights. This would have been a dramatic setback for the 
Arab spring which represents the most consequential geopolitical 
opportunity in centuries.
  That is why Libya matters and why we were right to intervene. Yes, 
there are many other places in the world where evil resides, where 
monsters brutalize civilians. The United States cannot and should not 
intervene in all of these places. But we were right to do so in Libya 
because of the unique position this country now occupies at a moment of 
historic change in the Middle East and North Africa. This does not mean 
we should take the same actions toward other countries in the region as 
we have toward Libya.
  Each of these countries is different. Their challenges and situations 
are different. When governments, both friend and foe, use force and 
oppression to crush peaceful demands for universal rights, we need to 
be clear in our condemnation, and we need to support the aspirations of 
all people who seek greater freedom, justice, and economic opportunity.
  But let's be clear. Qadhafi's brutal and vicious slaughter of fellow 
Arabs and Muslims has set Libya completely apart from other countries 
in the region, and it warranted the decisive military response we and 
our international partners have taken. While some believe the President 
should have sought a congressional authorization for the use of force, 
or even a formal declaration of war prior to taking military action in 
Libya, I think his actions were in keeping both with the

[[Page 4520]]

constitutional powers of the President and with past practices, be it 
President Reagan's action in Grenada or President Clinton's action in 
the Balkans.
  Had Congress taken even a few days to debate the use of force prior 
to acting in Libya, there would have been nothing left to save in 
Benghazi. That is why our Founders gave the President the power as 
Commander in Chief to respond swiftly and energetically to crises. What 
we need now is not a debate about the past; that can come later. Many 
of us who wanted a no-fly zone at the time still are convinced that 
this could have been over by now. But the fact is, it is in the past.
  What we need is a forward-looking strategy to accomplish the U.S. 
goal--as articulated by the President--of forcing Qadhafi to leave 
power. We have prevented the worst outcome in Libya, but we have not 
yet secured our goal. As some of us predicted, U.S. and coalition 
airpower has decisively and quickly reversed the momentum of Qadhafi's 
forces, but now we need to refine U.S. strategy to achieve success as 
quickly as possible.
  As every military strategist knows, the purpose of employing military 
force is to achieve policy goals. Our goal in Libya is that Qadhafi 
must go, and it is the right goal. But let's be honest with ourselves: 
We are indeed talking about regime change, whether the President wants 
to call it that or not. While I agree with the President that we should 
not send U.S. ground troops to Libya to remove Qadhafi from power, that 
is exactly what Libyan opposition forces are fighting to do. They are 
now on the outskirts of Qadhafi's hometown of Surt, and they appear to 
have no intention of stopping there.
  Thus far, U.S. and coalition airpower has cleared a path for the 
opposition to advance. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 authorizes 
the use of ``all necessary measures'' to protect civilians in Libya. As 
long as Qadhafi remains in power, he will pose an increasing danger to 
the world, and civilians in Libya will not be safe.
  Ultimately, we need to be straight with the American people and with 
ourselves. We are not neutral in the conflict in Libya. We want the 
opposition to succeed, and we want Qadhafi to leave power. These are 
just causes. And we must therefore provide the necessary and 
appropriate assistance to aid the opposition in their fight. That 
certainly means continuing to use air power to degrade Qadhafi's 
military forces in the field, and I am encouraged by the fact that we 
are now bringing in AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft to provide more 
close-in air support.
  This is the Libyan people's fight, but we need to continue to help 
make it a fairer fight, until Qadhafi is forced to leave power. I was 
very encouraged today to hear our ambassador to the United Nations 
suggest that the United States may provide arms to the opposition. We 
should also provide them, if requested and as appropriate, with 
resources, command and control technology, communications equipment, 
battlefield intelligence, and training. We need to take every 
responsible measure to help the Libyan opposition change the balance of 
power on the ground.
  Yes, it has been documented that many eastern Libyans went to fight 
in Iraq, Many met their end there too. But Libyans are not rising up 
against Qadhafi now under the banner of al-Qaida. To the contrary, they 
have largely pledged their support to the Transitional National 
Council, which is based in Benghazi, and representative of tribes and 
communities across Libya. The leaders of this council are not unknown 
to us. They have met with senior administration officials, including 
the Secretary of State, as well as other world leaders. Their 
supporters are brave lawyers, students, and human rights advocates who 
just want to choose their own future free from Qadhafi. They have 
declared their vision for Libya as, quote, ``a constitutional 
democratic civil state based on the rule of law, respect for human 
rights and the guarantee of equal rights and opportunities for all its 
citizens.'' If these moderate, democratic forces do not succeed in 
Libya, we know exactly who would fill the void: the radicals and the 
ideologues. We have seen this movie before.
  We cannot make the assumption that time is on our side. It is not. 
Perhaps Qadhafi's regime will crack tomorrow. I hope it will. But hope 
is not a strategy. If our strategy does not succeed in forcing Qadhafi 
to leave power sooner rather than later, we run the risk of a prolonged 
and bloody stalemate. That is not in America's interest or in the 
interest of the Libyan people. The risks are still too high of 
repeating a similar outcome from the first gulf war--where we had 
crushing sanctions and a no-fly zone in place, but still Saddam Hussein 
managed to hold onto power, threaten the world, and brutalize his own 
people for another 12 years. And only then, it took an armed invasion 
to remove him from power. That is not a definition of success in Libya. 
And it certainly is not a limited mission. It is a recipe for a costly 
and indefinite stalemate. We must avert that outcome.
  Our mission in Libya is going well, but we have not yet accomplished 
our goal. I am extremely thankful and grateful for our many friends and 
allies, especially our Arab partners, who are contributing to this 
mission. However, none of this is a substitute for sustained U.S. 
leadership. If our goal in Libya is worth fighting for, and I believe 
it is, then the United States must remain strongly engaged to force 
Qadhafi to leave power. Nothing less is desirable or sustainable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________