[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10440-10441]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           NATIONAL SECURITY

  Mr. President, historians will note that President Obama's national 
security policy has been noteworthy for its adherence to consistent 
objectives: drawing down our conventional and nuclear forces, 
withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, surrendering the tools necessary 
to fight the war on terror, and placing substantial trust in 
international organizations and diplomacy. In short, he has displayed 
an inflexible commitment to policy positions that would completely 
erode America's standing in the world, and he has refused to change 
course even as circumstances have changed.
  I, like many in the Senate, profoundly disagree with his view of 
America's role in the world. I disagree because I believe his attitude 
has left America weaker and will leave substantial problems to his 
successor.
  I believe that we, as a superpower without imperialistic aims, have a 
duty to help maintain an international order and a balance of power, 
not out of altruism but out of national interest. And I believe that 
international order is best maintained through American military might. 
In fact, I believe that American military might forms its very 
backbone.
  But President Obama has always been a reluctant Commander in Chief. 
It seems he has always seen things quite differently. That was clear 
from his first actions in office, and his more recent actions set the 
other bookend to his Presidency--withdrawal from Afghanistan.
  Consider that in his very first week in office, he signed an 
Executive order that sought to end CIA's interrogation and detention 
programs and to close Guantanamo within a year. The problem was that he 
didn't have a credible plan for what to do with the detainees 
afterward. He still doesn't.
  That was one of the first things he did in office, and it parallels 
disconcertingly with one of the most recent things he has done in 
office: announcing the withdrawal of all of our combat forces from 
Afghanistan by the end of his term. I say that because once again he 
announced step A without thinking through the consequences of step B. 
He seems determined to pull out completely whether or not the Taliban 
is in a position to reestablish itself, whether or not Al Qaeda's 
leadership finds a more permissive environment in the tribal areas of 
Pakistan, and whether or not Al Qaeda has been driven from Afghanistan 
completely--one of our primary aims in this conflict from the 
beginning.
  The two examples I mentioned serve as bookends to his Presidency, but 
between these two bookends much has been done that undermines our 
national security--for instance, the President's inability to see 
Russia and China for what they are: dissatisfied regional powers intent 
on increasing their respective spheres of influence.
  The failed reset with Russia and the President's commitment to a 
world

[[Page 10441]]

without nuclear weapons led him to hastily sign an arms treaty that did 
nothing to substantially reduce Russia's nuclear stockpile. What do we 
have to show for the reset? Moscow was undeterred in its assault on 
Ukraine, as everyone can plainly see, and Russia has repeatedly found 
ways to undermine our national objectives.
  Then there is the President's strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific--a 
plan he announced without any real plan to fund it, rendering the 
strategy largely hollow. We see examples of that almost daily, with 
China undeterred in its efforts to intimidate smaller nations over 
territorial disputes. Let's be clear. We cannot pivot forces to Asia 
that are still needed in places such as the Mediterranean and Persian 
Gulf, nor can we constrain China's ambitions without investing or 
developing the forces needed to do so. I fear that the failure to make 
the kinds of naval, air, and Marine Corps investments that are 
necessary could have tragic consequences down the road.
  Of course, we have all seen how eager the President is to declare an 
end to the war on terrorism. The threat from Al Qaeda and other 
affiliated groups has now metastasized. The turmoil unleashed by 
uprisings in north Africa and the broader Middle East has resulted in 
additional ungoverned space in Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen. We have 
seen prison breaks in Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and the release of 
hundreds of prisoners in Egypt. Terrorists have also escaped from 
prisons in Yemen, a country that is no more ready to detain the 
terrorists at Guantanamo now than they were in 2009. And the flow of 
foreign fighters into Syria--which has fueled the growth of ISIL--
suggests that the civil war there will last for the foreseeable future.
  The dogged adherence to withdrawing our conventional strength and 
sticking to campaign promises has created a more dangerous world, not a 
stable one--as just one example, the President's failure to negotiate a 
status of forces agreement with Iraq. An agreement such as that would 
have allowed for the kind of residual military force that could have 
prevented the assault by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Now 
we see the consequences unfolding before our eyes, and it is incredibly 
worrying. President Obama's withdrawal-at-all-costs policy regarding 
Iraq has proved deeply harmful to U.S. interests, and it ignores the 
sacrifices made by our servicemembers--those who sacrificed life and 
limb fighting to keep America safe.
  Several weeks ago the President spoke at West Point, and in that 
speech he vaguely described a new counterterrorism strategy and pledged 
to engage ``partners to fight terrorists alongside us.'' He made clear 
that he hopes to use special operations forces in an economy of force, 
and he hopes to deploy, train, and assist missions across the globe--
all as he withdraws our conventional forces and as our conventional 
warfighting ability atrophies.
  As I said, he will leave his successor with a great many challenges.
  So this morning my Republican colleagues and I will explain how, by 
inflexibly clinging to campaign promises made in 2008, the President 
has weakened the national security posture of the United States and why 
we believe he is likely to leave the next President with daunting 
security problems to solve.
  Mr. President, I see the Senator from Arizona and others are here.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________