[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9049-9050]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     THE PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN POLICY

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words here about 
the fact that apparently President Obama is now going to send hundreds 
more troops to Iraq. ``The President plans to deploy hundreds,'' 
according to the media reports, ``more American troops to western Anbar 
Province, POLITICO has learned, to step up training for Iraqi troops 
who'll be charged with retaking the city of Ramadi and other ground 
lost to ISIL.''

       However, American troops still will not go into combat with 
     Iraqi units, to help fight ISIL directly or to call for 
     airstrikes. And defense officials continue to worry about 
     Iraqis' end of the bargain--whether Baghdad can send enough 
     recruits to take advantage of a widened American training 
     pipeline. One U.S. training center, at Al Assad Air Base in 
     western Anbar, hasn't had any Iraqi recruits to train for 
     months.

  We are going to send 400 more people, maybe, to staff up their 
headquarters. I don't know, but when we have a situation where 75 
percent of the air combat missions over Iraq and Syria return--75 
percent of them--without dropping a weapon, it is so reminiscent of 
another war at another time many years ago where, under then-Secretary 
of Defense McNamara, this same kind of strategy prevailed.
  I would remind my colleagues of the various statements that have been 
made by President Obama and others.
  January 27, 2014: ``Obama Likens ISIS to `J.V. Team.'''
  On August 7, 2014, Mr. Obama said that ``the United States had no 
intention of `being the Iraqi air force.'''
  September 10, 2014:

       President Obama authorized a major expansion of the 
     campaign against the Islamic State, saying the United States 
     was recruiting a global coalition to ``degrade and ultimately 
     destroy'' the militants.

  Unfortunately, there is still--the President said I believe the day 
before yesterday that ``we do not yet have a complete strategy'' for 
fighting the Islamic State and that thousands of new fighters were 
replenishing the ranks of the militant group faster than the coalition 
could remove them from the fight.
  In other words, we are losing.
  I would remind my colleagues of the news items today. The Wall Street 
Journal: ``U.S. Strategy in Lebanon Stirs Fears.''

       Critics say Washington's funding cut for a program in 
     Lebanon to develop alternative Shiite political voices to 
     Hezbollah is an effort to appease Iran.

  ``China military says conducted drills near Taiwan, Philippines.''

       Chinese warships and aircraft on Wednesday passed through 
     Bashi Channel between Taiwan and the Philippines to hold 
     routine planned exercises in the Western Pacific.

  The Hill: ``U.S. training base in Iraq hasn't seen a new recruit in 
weeks.''

       The U.S. mission in Iraq has stalled at one of the five 
     coalition training sites because the central government has 
     not been sending new recruits, according to defense 
     officials.

  There is an interesting one in the Wall Street Journal: ``Iraqi City 
of Mosul Transformed a Year After Islamic State Capture.''
  I remind my colleagues of the many statements made by American 
officials as well as Iraqis that they were going to retake the city of 
Mosul very quickly.

       In Islamic State's stronghold of Mosul, the extremist group 
     is working day and night to repair roads, manicure gardens 
     and refurbish hotels. Iraq's second-largest city has never 
     looked so good thanks to strict laws enforced by the Sunni 
     militants. But beneath that veneer, the group metes out 
     deadly punishments to those who don't comply with a long list 
     of prohibitions imposed over the year since it took control 
     of Mosul on June 10, 2014, according to interviews with more 
     than a dozen current and former city. . . . officials.
       Mosul is still almost fully inhabited--a contrast to cities 
     where Iraqi and coalition forces have pushed the Islamic 
     State out.
       Doctors, judges, and professors who defied or questioned 
     Islamic State laws have been executed, sometimes by public 
     stoning or crucifixion. Prisons are filled with people 
     awaiting their sentences from the Islamic court.
       ``Nearly no one gets out alive,'' one of the residents 
     said.
       Then came the attacks on minorities.
       ``There are many things we do not consider Islamic at all, 
     like the way Christians were treated,'' said a female doctor 
     from Mosul who is pious and veiled.
       ``All of Mosul does not accept what has happened to the 
     Christians,'' said the woman, who lives in the northern city 
     of Kirkuk. The group's attack on minorities ``was a major 
     mistake that cost them our support.''

  ``Suicide bomber attacks tourist site in Luxor, four Egyptians 
wounded.''
  ``China military conducts drills near Taiwan, Philippines.''
  ``Al-Qaida militants in Libya attack IS after leader killed.''
  ``China exports repression beyond its borders.''
  ``Foreign Policy: Airstrikes Killing Thousands of Islamic State 
Fighters, but It Just Recruits More.''

       ``The strength of ISIS continues to grow, so they're 
     getting more in from recruits than they are losing through 
     casualties,'' said Rick Brennan, a former U.S. Army infantry 
     officer who was a civilian adviser to the U.S. military in 
     Iraq. . . . Brennan, now a senior political scientist at the 
     Rand Corp., said he was basing his opinion on intelligence 
     estimates that have been made public.

  So the bragging about killing 10,000 ISIS--they forgot to mention 
that there are more coming in than they are killing--also reminiscent 
of the days of the Vietnam war where body counts seemed to be the 
criteria.
  ``Islamic State keeps firm grip one year after Mosul's fall.''

       Weak Iraqi forces no closer to reclaiming strategic city.

  The New York Times: ``ISIS Stages Attacks in Iraq and Libya, Despite 
U.S. Airstrikes.''

       Islamic State militants staged attacks near Baghdad and the 
     Libyan city of Surt on Tuesday, underscoring the group's 
     persistent strength on both fronts despite a monthlong 
     American-led air campaign against it in Syria and Iraq.

  The Wall Street Journal: ``U.S. Prepares Plan to Send Hundreds More 
Trainers to Iraq,'' as I talked about.
  The Associated Press: ``State Dep't spokesman: Saving Iraq could take 
3-5 years.''
  Naturally, there is no mention of Syria.
  By the way, they said that they were developing if not a complete 
strategy--I would like to know the incomplete

[[Page 9050]]

part of it. I would like to know what strategy there is of any kind.
  The Wall Street Journal: ``Iraqi City of Mosul Transformed a Year 
After Islamic State Capture.''
  I mentioned before that ISIS stage attacks in Iraq and Libya despite 
U.S. airstrikes.
  It goes on and on. Meanwhile, the President of the United States 
will, according to the media reports, announce today that we will send 
400 or so more to Iraq, none of which is accompanied by a strategy, 
none of which is accompanied by forward air controllers, so we will 
continue to see 75 percent of the combat missions flown return to base 
without having discharged their weapons since we have no one on the 
ground to identify targets. This is incrementalism at its best or 
worst, depending on how you would describe it.
  Today, I hope we will be able to take some additional amendments. We 
have a managers' package getting prepared, and I believe Senator Reed 
and I are moving forward with some amendments we can have debated and 
also voted on today.

                          ____________________