[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13381-13383]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 SYRIA

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the decision on whether to authorize the 
President of the United States to use the military might of our great 
Nation against another country is the most significant vote a Senator 
can cast. The Constitution vests this responsibility in Congress--a 
duty that rests heavily on the shoulders of each and every Member.
  We are now engaged in a serious debate about what the appropriate 
response should be to the horrific use of chemical weapons by the 
regime of Syrian President Asad who killed his own people using 
chemical weapons on August 21. This was not the first use of chemical 
weapons by President Asad.

[[Page 13382]]

He launched several smaller scale attacks, murdering his citizens, and, 
notably, many, if not all, of those attacks occurred after the 
President drew his redline a year ago. But it was not until the large-
scale August 21 attack of this year, which resulted in the deaths of 
approximately 1,400 people, that President Obama decided a military 
strike against Syria was warranted. The fact is Asad violated the 
international convention prohibiting the use of chemical weapons and 
crossed President Obama's redline many times during the past year.
  Deciding whether to grant the President this authority is a very 
difficult decision. I have participated in numerous discussions with 
the President, the Vice President, and experts in and out of 
government. I have attended many classified briefings as a member of 
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and I have carefully 
weighed the assessments of the intelligence community and military and 
State Department officials. My constituents have also provided me with 
valuable insights that have helped to guide my decision. After much 
deliberation and thought, I have decided I cannot support the 
resolution that was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
last week.
  One of the criteria for the use of military force is surely whether 
the adversary poses an imminent threat to the American people. More 
than once President Obama has stated Syria's chemical weapons and 
delivery systems do not pose a direct imminent threat to the United 
States. Neither the United States nor any of our allies have been 
attacked with chemical weapons. Instead, President Obama justifies the 
attack he is proposing as a response to the violation of international 
norms, despite the fact that we currently lack international partners 
to enforce the Convention on Chemical Weapons through military means.
  Although the term ``limited air strikes'' sounds less threatening, 
the fact is even limited air strikes constitute an act of war. If bombs 
were dropped from the air or cruise missiles were launched into an 
American city, we would certainly consider that to be an act of war, 
and that is why this decision is fraught with consequences.
  American military strikes against the Asad regime, in my judgment, 
risk entangling the United States in the middle of a protracted, 
dangerous, and ugly civil war. GEN Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned us that the use of U.S. military 
force ``cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious, 
and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict.''
  The introduction of American Armed Forces into this violent conflict 
could escalate to the point where we are perceived to be, or actually 
are, involved in a Syrian civil war or a proxy war with Hezbollah or 
Iran.
  In this complex conflict, it is also becoming increasingly difficult 
to sort out the good guys from the bad. There is no doubt that Asad is 
a brutal, ruthless dictator who murders his own citizens and who is 
supported by thousands of Hezbollah terrorist fighters. The opposition, 
however, is not pure. It has now been infiltrated by not one but two 
affiliates of Al Qaeda as well as by criminal gangs. Caught in the 
middle are millions of Syrians who simply want to lead peaceful lives. 
The tragic result has been more than 100,000 people killed, 4 million 
displaced internally, and 2 million refugees.
  We do not know how Asad or his allies would respond to a U.S. 
military attack, but an asymmetric attack by Hezbollah aimed at one of 
our bases or at other American interests abroad certainly is one 
potential response. My concern is that reprisals, followed by 
subsequent retaliations, followed by still more reprisals could lead to 
an escalation of violence which never was intended by the President but 
which may well be the result of the first strike.
  I have raised this issue directly with administration officials since 
the ``one and done'' strike, as retired GEN Michael Hayden puts it, may 
well not work. I have asked the administration what they would do if 
Asad waits until the 91st day, when the authorization for the use of 
military force expires, and then conducts an attack using chemical 
weapons that kills a much smaller number of people. What will we do 
then? In each case where I have raised this question, I have been told 
that we would likely launch another military strike.
  In addition to my concern about being dragged into the Syrian civil 
war, I question whether the proposed military response would be more 
effective in achieving the goal of eliminating Asad's stockpile of 
chemical weapons than a diplomatic approach would be.
  Let's be clear. The strikes proposed by the President would not 
eliminate Asad's chemical weapons, nor his means of delivering them. In 
the President's own words, the purpose of these strikes is ``to degrade 
Asad's capabilities to deliver chemical weapons.'' Indeed, you will not 
find any military or intelligence official who believes that the strike 
contemplated by the administration would eliminate Syria's chemical 
weapons stockpile or all of the delivery systems. General Dempsey wrote 
to Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin that even if an 
explicit military mission to secure Syria's chemical weapons were 
undertaken, it would result in the control of ``some, but not all'' 
chemical weapons in Syria, and that is not what is being discussed 
because that would undoubtedly involve boots on the ground.
  According to the President, the purpose of his more narrow objective 
is to deliver a calculated message to convince Asad not to use his 
remaining chemical weapons and delivery systems ever again. But would 
such a strike be effective in preventing Asad from using these weapons 
again on a small scale after he has absorbed the strike just to deliver 
his own message that he retains the capability to do so? Asad would 
retain a sufficient quantity of chemical weapons, and he knows that we 
did not respond to smaller chemical weapons attacks that he undertook 
before the August 21, 2013, event.
  So on the one hand, the President is seeking to conduct a precision 
military strike that is sufficient to deter Asad from using any 
chemical weapons again. On the other hand, he wants to narrow the scope 
of a military strike so that Asad does not perceive this act of war as 
a threat to his regime. Yet the President has previously stated that 
U.S. policy is the removal of Asad.
  While administration officials have gone out of their way to state 
that the military strikes are only to deter and degrade Asad's chemical 
weapons use and are not intended to pick sides in the civil war, the 
text of the resolution before us is at odds with the administration's 
representations. The text states that it is the policy of the United 
States to ``change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to 
create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the 
conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.'' Well, no one 
could ever consider the Asad dictatorship to be a democratic government 
in Syria.
  Furthermore, on September 3 Secretary of State John Kerry testified 
that ``it is not insignificant that to deprive [Asad] of the capacity 
to use chemical weapons or to degrade the capacity to use those 
chemical weapons actually deprives him of a lethal weapon in this 
ongoing civil war, and that has an impact.''
  That is a very mixed message from this administration about the 
purpose of these strikes.
  All of us want to see a peaceful Syria, no longer led by Asad, nor 
controlled by the radical Islamic extremists who are part of his 
opposition. But is military action that could well get us involved in 
Syria's civil war the right answer?
  When I think about the proper response to Asad's abhorrent use of 
chemical weapons, I am mindful of the suffering and death that has 
occurred as well as the international conventions banning chemical 
weapons. Since this is an international norm, however, where are our 
international partners--the United Nations, NATO, the Arab League?
  I have grave reservations about undertaking an act of war to enforce 
an

[[Page 13383]]

international convention without the international support we have 
previously had when undertaking similar action in the past, such as in 
Kosovo, Afghanistan, and even Iraq. While NATO's Secretary General has 
expressed support for consequences, NATO's North Atlantic Council, 
which is the body that approves military action for NATO, has not 
approved this military action. The Arab League has condemned with words 
the use of chemical weapons, but there is yet to be any Arab League 
statement that explicitly endorses military action or promises to be 
engaged in that action. Even our ally who has been most supportive, 
France, has asked for a delay to allow the U.N. inspectors to deliver 
their report next week.
  Let me add that I believe that report early next week will verify 
that it was the Asad regime that used sarin gas. That is my 
expectation.
  A military strike may well enforce the international norm with 
respect to chemical weapons, but at the same time it would weaken the 
international norm of limiting military action to instances of self-
defense or those cases where we have the support of the international 
community or at least our allies in NATO or the Arab League.
  In addressing this difficult and tragic crisis in Syria, the 
administration initially presented us with only two choices: Take 
military action or make no response at all. I reject and have rejected 
from the start the notion that the United States has only two choices--
undertaking an act of war or doing nothing in response to President 
Asad's attack on his citizens. There are a variety of nonmilitary 
responses to consider that may well be more effective. The most 
promising of these options, proposed by the Russians--one of Asad's 
strongest allies--would place Syria's chemical weapons stockpile in the 
custody of the international community before they would ultimately be 
destroyed.
  I am not naive about ``trusting'' the Russians. My point is that this 
option may well be in Russia's own interests, would be more effective 
in securing the stockpile of chemical weapons in Syria, and would 
involve the international community. This diplomatic alternative would 
put Syria's chemical weapons under verified international control and 
would once and for all prevent Asad or anyone else in Syria from using 
those weapons. A risk of attacking Asad's facilities is that the 
chemical weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist elements in the 
country. That risk would be eliminated if the weapons were removed 
completely from Syria.
  One of the arguments advanced by proponents of the authorization for 
the use of military force resolution is that America's credibility is 
on the line. This is a legitimate concern. To be sure, it was 
unfortunate that the President drew a line in the sand without first 
having a well-vetted plan, consulting with Congress, and obtaining the 
necessary support for doing so. I would maintain, however, that the 
credibility of our great Nation is beyond that of just one statement by 
the President, even in his important capacity as Commander in Chief. 
The credibility of the United States is backed by a military that is 
the most advanced and capable in the world. The strength of our 
military sends the clear, unmistakable message that the United States 
is capable of exerting overwhelming force whenever we decide it is the 
right thing to do and it is necessary to do so. It would be a mistake 
for our adversaries to interpret a single vote regarding a military 
response to Syria's chemical weapons program as having ramifications 
for our willingness to use force when our country or our allies face 
direct imminent threats, especially with regard to the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities.
  At the very least we have an obligation to pursue all nonmilitary 
options that may well be more effective in preventing the future use of 
Asad's chemical weapons than the military option the President has 
proposed to undertake.
  For these reasons, should the authorization for the use of military 
force approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee come to the 
Senate floor, I shall cast my vote in opposition.
  My hope, however, is that the negotiations underway with the Russians 
will pave the way for the removal of chemical stockpiles from Syria and 
for their verified ultimate destruction. That is the best outcome for 
this crisis. That would lead to a safer world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand that Members can speak for 
up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________