[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13202-13204]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 SYRIA

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my friend the 
distinguished Senator from Ohio for including me in his unanimous 
consent request. I will briefly speak about an amendment.
  We all understand that the issue is going to come before this body to 
send activity into Syria. I am very much opposed to any kind of force 
in Syria, but if it happens, we want to be sure there is some 
protection there. So I have an amendment that even if my amendment 
passes, I will still oppose the effort of this President to send 
activity into Syria, and I believe it would precipitate a war.
  My amendment is very simple. If the President takes military action 
against Syria, sequestration of our Armed Forces would be delayed for 1 
year. We are talking about the fiscal year where we would take another 
$52 billion out of our military.
  What Asad has done and continues to do is reprehensible, but the 
United States can't afford another war given the current state of our 
military. The threats from Syria and the Middle East are not emerging 
threats. These threats have been around for decades. We knew they were 
there. There is nothing new about them. Yet the readiness capabilities 
of our military continue to be decimated by drastic budget cuts.
  Sixteen Air Force combat flying squadrons have been grounded. We 
finally, after 3 months, put them back in the air again, and right now 
we know it costs more to get them back in a state of readiness than the 
money we saved from grounding them for 3 months. Our naval fleet has 
been reduced to historically low levels, the end strength of our ground 
forces has been cut by more than 100,000 personnel, and hundreds of 
thousands of DOD civilian employees have been furloughed. Just in my 
State of Oklahoma, in one of my installations, 14,000 civilian 
employees have been furloughed.
  We can't have it both ways--continuing to cut the funding of our 
military while still expecting to meet our national security 
requirements. As military readiness and capabilities decline, we accept 
greater risk, and, as I have always said, risk equals lives. Every time 
we have a hearing, we have our combatant commanders come in and talk 
about the risks. Risk means lives. As I have always said, risk equals 
lives, and allowing these cuts to continue while proposing to send our 
forces into harm's way is immoral and reprehensible.
  Over the last week I have heard a lot from the President and his 
administration about how any action in Syria will be limited. I suggest 
there is no such thing as limited war. Once we decide to strike, we 
can't predict where it will end or how the situation might escalate. 
Let's not forget that we have troops currently on the ground in Jordan 
and Turkey, marines guarding our Embassies, and sailors and airmen 
stationed around the region. We have already heard that Iran is 
ordering its

[[Page 13203]]

terrorist proxies to retaliate by attacking U.S. interests in the 
region, including our Embassy in Iraq. The State Department has ordered 
nonessential personnel to evacuate our Embassy in Lebanon. The threats 
to our forces are real.
  I wish to read for my colleagues excerpts from a letter that was 
written by two ladies, Rebekah Sanderlin and Molly Blake. These are 
spouses of two of our servicemen. They are responding--much more 
eloquently than I could ever hope to--to the immense hardship our 
military is enduring under sequestration and to the misguided belief 
that a military strike on Syria can be done in isolation--that it won't 
affect our troops and their families.
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              An Open Letter to CNN Reporter Barbara Starr

            [From The Huffington Post, posted Sept. 4, 2013]

       Dear Ms. Starr: We are writing to let you in on a secret. 
     It's a big one--so get to a fresh page in your reporter 
     notebook and have your pen poised and ready.
       You told your viewers last Thursday that there was ``no 
     question'' that the military could afford to go into Syria 
     and that you ``don't think it's really going to affect 
     military families at all.''
       Here's some inside information for you: There is no such 
     thing as a person-less war. Our military cannot afford for 
     Americans to forget that wars and battles and military 
     strikes are fought by troops, that troops are people, and 
     that those people have families.
       In our military communities this summer we couldn't even 
     afford to pay federal employees for a five-day work week. 
     Military families can't get doctors' appointments and can't 
     get the counseling services needed to grapple with the 
     problems we already have, problems largely created by almost 
     12 years of war. And while Congress was busy sending a 
     warning letter to the president to ensure they get to sign 
     off on whether or not we go to war, they managed to ignore 
     military families when the sequester hit. Today clinic hours 
     are being slashed--along with pretty much every other service 
     military families need. Walking around our communities 
     lately, it doesn't look like we can afford much of anything--
     and certainly not a whole new war.
       And that's just taking `afford' literally.
       Figuratively, the picture is even grimmer. An entire 
     generation of military kids have grown up with a parent they 
     know primarily through Skype. Couples are trying to piece 
     together marriages that have been badly fractured by more 
     years spent apart than together. We grew hopeful that better 
     days were coming as we watched the end of the Iraq war, and 
     we're thrilled that the end of our involvement in Afghanistan 
     is nigh, and yet now all of cable news is breathless and 
     giddy with talk of war in Syria.
       You boast, in your bio, that you have exclusive access to 
     Lt. Gen. Russel Honore and you've interviewed several 
     secretaries of defense and other important people at the CIA. 
     You may very well have Sec. Hagel on speed dial--but that 
     doesn't give you the right to toss around your thoughts on 
     how military families may or may not be affected by military 
     action. Not until you've stood in our shoes for longer than a 
     three-minute live shot.
       You see, Barbara, there's no such thing as `no boots on the 
     ground.' We in the military community sigh and shake our 
     heads when we hear talk like that from the people on TV. 
     Perhaps you consider a relatively small number of troops to 
     be the same as zero--but we don't. We know that each of those 
     service members is somebody's somebody.
       As journalists, we like to show both sides of the story. So 
     we would like to also voice our thanks. For your careless 
     words have aimed a giant floodlight on the military-civilian 
     divide. Blue Star Families Director of Research and Policy, 
     Vivian Greentree said it best:
       We hear a sense of angst in our membership and throughout 
     the military community. How can we be in the middle of the 
     fall out of sequestration--furloughs, program cuts, loss of 
     mission readiness--we have families who can't get medical 
     appointments. They are all wondering how they will manage if 
     the situation in Syria continues to escalate. They wonder how 
     will it affect them. Not, if it will affect them. But, how.
       ``That statement, in all its small-minded glory, captures 
     the civilian-military divide more clearly than any survey 
     ever could.''
       And maybe someday we will be able to fight whole wars 
     without using a single human . . . And Rosie the Robot will 
     clean our kitchens while we tackle our morning commutes in 
     flying cars. But today, in 2013, we can't have a `surgical 
     strike' without someone saying where to drop the bombs or 
     where to aim those missiles. And those planes that drop the 
     bombs? The destroyers that carry the missiles? They have 
     pilots, captains and crews. All humans. Even the ``unmanned'' 
     drones have human pilots, and the psychological wear and tear 
     on them is staggering. Planes take off from airfields in 
     foreign lands or from aircraft carriers, both of which are 
     staffed by thousands of American somebodies, just like those 
     destroyer ships. At every turn in a military operation you 
     will find people. Intel analysts, linguists, flight crews, 
     and cooks. Even war plans, regardless of whether they were, 
     as you stated, ``on deployment anyway'' rely on thousands of 
     people who will be pulled to a new duty, which causes 
     reshuffling far and wide in the military community.
       And this, most definitely, affects military families.
       The big question is, as you said, ``will it work?'' and, as 
     we learned from the most recent wars, it bears recalling that 
     things don't always go as planned. But that's not the only 
     question. Do not kid yourself, Barbara, and don't you dare 
     kid the viewers who trust your reporting.
           Sincerely,
                                Rebekah Sanderlin and Molly Blake,
                                                 Military Spouses.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to quote from the letter I just 
submitted for the Record, and I ask my colleagues to listen to the 
quote. These are two ladies who are spouses of servicemen. They said:

       There is no such thing as a person-less war. Our military 
     cannot afford for Americans to forget that wars and battles 
     and military strikes are fought by troops, that troops are 
     people, and that those people have families. In our military 
     communities this summer we couldn't even afford to pay 
     Federal employees for a five-day work week. Military families 
     can't get doctors' appointments and can't get counseling 
     services needed to grapple with the problems we already have, 
     problems largely created by almost 12 years of war. Today 
     clinic hours are being slashed--along with pretty much every 
     other service military families need. Walking around our 
     communities lately, it doesn't look like we can afford much 
     of anything--and certainly not a whole new war.

  I am still quoting now these wives of our military men:

       And maybe someday we will be able to fight whole wars 
     without using a single human, but today, in 2013, we can't 
     have a surgical strike without someone saying where to drop 
     the bombs or where to aim those missiles. And those planes 
     that drop the bombs? The destroyers that carry the missiles? 
     They have pilots, captains, and crews. All humans. Even the 
     ``unmanned'' drones have human pilots, and the psychological 
     wear and tear on them is staggering. Planes take off from 
     airfields in foreign lands and from aircraft carriers, both 
     of which are staffed by thousands of American somebodies, 
     just like those destroyer ships. At every turn in a military 
     operation you will find people. Intel analysts, linguists, 
     flight crews, and cooks. Even war plans . . . rely on 
     thousands of people who will be pulled to a new duty, which 
     causes reshuffling far and wide in the military community. 
     And this, most definitely, affects our military families.

  Again, that is a quote from two of the wives of our current 
servicemen. I hope all of my colleagues will read this letter. I hope 
they understand that the decisions we make this week about whether to 
go to war in Syria have a human dimension.
  If we expect the brave men and women in our military to go to foreign 
lands and risk their lives on our behalf, we have a moral obligation to 
ensure that they and their families have the support and the resources 
that are required. Sequestration has already inflicted severe damage on 
our military, and we are now only a couple of weeks from another $52 
billion being slashed from an already devastated military budget.
  I have been clear that I don't support the President's call for 
military action in Syria. He still hasn't presented Congress and the 
American people with a plan for what he wants to accomplish, how he 
intends to accomplish it, or how he intends to pay for it. Will the 
President pay for this operation with more furloughs and by grounding 
more squadrons again? The CNO has already come forward and stated that 
if operations against Syria extend into October, he won't be able to 
afford it and will likely require supplemental funding from Congress.
  Furthermore, the President hasn't told us how a strike in Syria fits 
into a broader strategy for the Middle East. What we decide to do is 
not just about Syria. It is bigger than that. This is about the growing 
threat from Iran, stability in the Middle East, and our commitment to 
Israel and allies and

[[Page 13204]]

our ability to respond to other contingencies that are there.
  I recall knowing what was going to happen. This is 4\1/2\ years ago, 
back when President Obama was first elected, his first election. I knew 
that when he came out with his first budget, he was going to do 
something devastating to the military. So I put myself into 
Afghanistan, knowing, with the tanks going back and forth, that I would 
be able to get the interest and the attention of the American people, 
and it worked. So in that very first budget 4\1/2\ years ago, he did 
away with the early fifth-generation bomber then, the F-22; did away 
with our future combat system--the first ground capability increase in 
about 50 years; did away with our lift capacity, the C-17. Then, the 
worst thing, which I hope doesn't turn out to create the worst problem 
for America, he did away with the ground-based operation in Poland. 
That was just the first budget. That was 4\1/2\ years ago. Since that 
time, in his extended budget, he has taken $487 billion out of the 
military, and with sequestration it will be another $\1/2\ trillion. 
This just can't happen.
  It is not just me who is saying this. People would expect it more 
from me. I am the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. I have gone there and worked with these guys and noticed the 
problems they have. I would suggest that not just me but Admiral 
Winnefeld, who is the second highest military guy, the Vice Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said:

       There could be, for the first time in my career--An admiral 
     speaking now, the second highest person in our military--
     instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we 
     will have to say we cannot.

  And then we go to the very top person, General Dempsey, the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said, ``Our military force is so 
degraded, so unready, it would be immoral to use force.''
  I only say this because we are going to be facing this, and I would 
be opposed to this even with my amendment to postpone the sequestration 
of the military for 1 year. However, if that passes, I will still 
oppose this taking place. I don't think many people in America realize 
what has happened to our military under the Obama administration.
  Well, I have just stated what has happened. This is certainly not a 
time when we would use force in Syria. Keep in mind that General 
Dempsey said it would be immoral to use force, we are so degraded, and 
that is exactly what we will be voting on in the next couple of days.
  With that, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________