[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1374-1378]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     AMERICAN LEADERSHIP AND SYRIA

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, not surprisingly, the talks that are 
commonly known as Geneva III, in an effort to stop the ongoing genocide 
taking place in Syria, have now been ``suspended.''
  I quote from this morning's Washington Post: ``Syrian peace talks are 
suspended before they even really begin.''
  That should surprise no one. The fact is that the situation on the 
ground, thanks to our total lack of a coherent strategy or even a 
serious effort, has resulted in Russian airstrikes, ensuring Bashar al-
Assad's continued strength. Along with the Iranians, along with 
Hezbollah that the Iranians have brought in from Lebanon--they all have 
given the overwhelming majority position to Bashar Assad, who is not 
about to leave office with the advantage he has now obtained on the 
battlefield, to a large degree because of Russian airstrikes that are 
relentless and that have mostly targeted the Western-backed opposition 
to Bashar Assad's rule. Those airstrikes, according to the Washington 
Post, have proven sufficient to push beyond doubt any likelihood that 
Assad will be removed from power by the nearly 5-year-old revolt 
against his rule.
  The gains on the ground are also calling into question whether there 
can be meaningful negotiations to end the conflict Assad and his allies 
now seem convinced they can win.
  Let's go back about 4 years. Bashar Assad was about to fall. The 
President of the United States said that it is not a matter of whether 
Bashar Assad will fall, it is a matter of when. All the momentum was on 
their side.
  At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, the Secretary of 
Defense--then Leon Panetta--said that the departure of Bashar Assad was 
``inevitable.'' And then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said 
it was inevitable that Bashar Assad will leave.
  So a policy which was doomed to failure--rejecting a no-fly zone, 
rejecting robust training and equipping of those who were seeking to 
stop the slaughter--has now resulted in what many now view as an 
international crisis; that is, the refugee problem where millions of 
refugees are flowing into European countries not just from Syria but 
primarily from Syria, Iraq, and other countries as far away as 
Afghanistan. So everyone--especially our European friends--is moaning, 
and their hearts go out and they are trying to accommodate this.
  This is not the cause of the problem; this is the result of a failure 
of American leadership, a feckless American leadership, and a Secretary 
of State--this Geneva Convention is not the first or the second but the 
third time--this is the third time our Secretary of State has convened 
a whole bunch of people in five-star hotels in Geneva, where, of 
course, the result has been nonexistent because the facts on the ground 
favor Bashar Assad, the Russians, and Hezbollah.
  So what has happened? Now, for the first time since 1973, when Anwar 
Sadat threw the Russians out of Egypt, the Russians now have a major 
role to play in the Middle East. They now have protected their base at 
Latakia. They now are conducting airstrikes in an indiscriminate 
fashion against--guess who--not ISIS but against the moderates who were 
fighting to overthrow Bashar Assad, while our Secretary of State calls 
him up, has conversations with him, begs them to start peace talks, et 
cetera. And it goes on.
  I think sometimes we all get a little numb, but we shouldn't be numb. 
We shouldn't be numb to 250,000 killed and slaughtered, chemical 
attacks that indiscriminately kill men, women, and children. These 
Russian airstrikes are

[[Page 1375]]

pervasive in the areas where the moderate opposition exists, and they 
are using what we call dumb bombs--not the precision bombs--
slaughtering hundreds of innocent men, women, and children. Places are 
surrounded where people are starving to death, and our Secretary of 
State calls for another meeting in Geneva. It is absolutely remarkable.
  I wish to point out again that according to the Washington Post 
story, Secretary of State John F. Kerry scrambled to rearrange his 
Thursday schedule after de Mistura--that is the U.N. guy--decided to 
delay the talks. The article states:

       ``The continued assault by Syrian regime forces--enabled by 
     Russian airstrikes--against opposition-held areas, as well as 
     regime and allied militias' continued besiegement of hundreds 
     of thousands of civilians, have clearly signaled the 
     intention to seek a military solution rather than enable a 
     political one,''. . . .
       Kerry repeated demands made by the opposition groups as 
     preconditions for negotiations. . . . [but] both the 
     opposition and human rights organizations have cited an 
     increase in Russian bombing over the past several days that 
     they said has targeted civilian areas, including camps for 
     displaced persons in the western part of the country.
       Russia maintains that it is only bombing ``terrorists,'' 
     but its definition of that word includes parts of the 
     opposition that has been fighting a civil war against Syrian 
     President Bashar al-Assad for more than four years, whose 
     representatives are among those on the opposition negotiating 
     team in Geneva.

  How can we expect them to negotiate while the Russian airstrikes are 
intensified? How can we possibly expect something positive to happen, 
when clearly the momentum and the strength is on the side of the 
Russians, the Iranians, and Bashar Assad?
  Friends, this is another chapter in American history of humiliation 
and a failure of leadership. Of course, all of that is no better 
epitomized and symbolized than by what happened when the Iranians 
captured two American vessels that happened to stray into their 
territorial waters. Everybody should know that when a ship goes into 
another country's territorial waters, the first thing to be done is to 
go out and guide them out of it. It is against international law to 
take them at gunpoint all over the world but particularly--all over the 
Middle East is the picture of American servicemen and one woman on 
their knees with Iranian Revolutionary Guards holding their automatic 
weapons on them. This is an incredible act of arrogance and a 
humiliation for our American sailors.
  What is the most aggravating is the response by the administration 
after this totally unlawful action and humiliation of American 
servicemembers and sailors. The response by the administration was--and 
I am not making this up--White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said 
that the sailors were offered ``the proper courtesy that you would 
expect.'' Being held at gunpoint on their knees with their hands behind 
their neck is, in the words of the White House Press Secretary, ``the 
proper courtesy that you would expect.''
  The Secretary of State, John Kerry, offered his ``gratitude to 
Iranian authorities for their cooperation in swiftly resolving this 
matter.'' That is the American Secretary of State after a gross 
violation of international law. Our American servicemen are put on 
their knees by a bunch of two-bit Iranians.
  Vice President Joe Biden described the incident as ``standard 
nautical practice.'' The Vice President of the United States says that 
when you put Americans on their knees and point weapons at them with 
evil intention, that is standard nautical practice. What planet has the 
Vice President of the United States been on?
  Now, to cap it all off, this week the Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei 
pinned the Order of Fat'h Medal to the chests of those who mistreated 
and humiliated American personnel. These people were given awards and 
medals by the Ayatollah Khamenei. The Obama administration has still 
failed to condemn Iran's behavior for what it was, a violation of 
international law and centuries of maritime tradition. According to a 
recent article in the Navy Times, legal experts all agree that this 
hostile incident represents a gross violation of international law.
  So I ask my friend from South Carolina: Is there any explanation that 
could possibly be understood about this act, a violation of 
international law and the humiliation of American servicemembers? There 
is only one reason; that is, they don't want to upset the Iranians. 
They don't want to disturb the $100 billion or so that is going to the 
Iranians as we speak while they buy weapons and toys all over Europe.
  So here we have now seen American service personnel put on their 
knees with guns to their heads, and the most important people in our 
government praised the Iranians for their actions. I would ask my 
friend, how else could you explain--not passivity, but--the absolute 
endorsement by the Vice President of the United States and the 
Secretary of State for this kind of humiliating behavior?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I say to Senator McCain, I think it is a disconnection 
from reality--trying to shape a reality that does not exist.
  Can you imagine your good friend Ronald Reagan, if he had been 
President, what the Iranians would have done?
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I remind our colleague that some of our colleagues 
recall that the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President of the 
United States, the hostages that were being held from our Embassy in 
Iran came home.
  Mr. GRAHAM. This is about lack of respect for the Obama 
administration, John Kerry, and everybody else in our government. The 
Iranians did this, Senator McCain, I think for one reason--to show the 
region they are not intimidated by the United States.
  Mr. McCAIN. Or that they can intimidate the United States----
  Mr. GRAHAM. Right, that they can test our resolve. They do it all the 
time. They fired two missile tests in violation of existing U.N. 
resolutions. The Obama administration did nothing about it. They 
captured two boats. These are lightly armored naval vessels with two 
50-caliber machine guns. One of them became disabled and they drifted 
into Iranian waters. The Iranians reacted as if it was some kind of 
invasion by America. They humiliated these sailors.
  Instead of standing up for our naval personnel, basically we thanked 
the Iranians for being so nice to people that they captured at gunpoint 
in violation of international law, but it goes to a deeper point. The 
Iranians are letting everybody in the region know they are not changing 
their behavior with this nuclear deal: Don't mistake us having a 
nuclear agreement with a behavior change.
  The Ayatollah and his henchmen are still in charge. They are not part 
of a family of nations. Since the deal has been signed, they fired 
missiles in violation of international resolutions, they are on the 
ground helping the ``Butcher of Damascus,'' Iranians are still the 
largest state sponsor of terrorism, and this is just the cherry on top 
of all that misbehavior.
  One thing I do want to talk about--and I will get your view of this 
because you are so knowledgeable. Syria has literally held on, and 
250,000 people have been slaughtered in Syria by Bashar Assad and his 
regime. Those people who took to the streets during the Arab Spring in 
Damascus were from all different backgrounds and different sects. They 
wanted to live in a country not run by Assad in such a brutal fashion. 
His response to their plea for better transparency, democracy, and 
economic opportunity was literally to shoot them down.
  Now we have an all-out war in Syria. The radical Islamic groups have 
moved into Syria. The caliphate headquarters of ISIL is in Syria. It 
has been the biggest misjudgment since Munich by this administration. 
They had Assad on the ropes 3 or 4 years ago and they didn't act, and 
what you see today is a result of a failure to act.
  What I find astonishing is that the Syrian people, who are being 
slaughtered by the thousands, are being asked by the U.S. Government to 
sit down with Assad and negotiate an end to this war. The Russians and 
Iranians are all-in for Bashar Assad. The people we have trained to 
replace Assad have

[[Page 1376]]

been killed by the Russian President. Our President hasn't lifted a 
finger. Now we have a Secretary of State basically browbeating the 
Syrian opposition to go to Geneva and enter into peace talks with 
Bashar Assad, who is in full control of his part of Syria. I can't 
believe we would do this to the Syrian people. The Syrian opposition 
called Senator McCain--this says a lot about you, my friend. They were 
calling Senator McCain to pass on a message: You have been our best 
friend. We are not going to sit down and talk with Assad until the U.N. 
resolutions calling for his removal have been honored.
  Our government wants a deal in Syria--regardless of the quality of 
it--to say they stopped the war on their watch. They are now asking the 
Syrian people basically to kowtow to the man who has killed their 
families.
  This deal with Iran is a nightmare for the region. You give the 
Iranian Ayatollah a pathway to a bomb, even if he doesn't cheat, a 
missile to deliver the bomb, and money to pay for it all. Now they want 
to take the same negotiating team into Syria and lock into place Bashar 
Assad's regime, which has slaughtered the Syrian people, give the 
Russians and Iranians a foothold in Damascus through negotiations that 
they could never have dreamed of a year ago.
  I ask Senator McCain, what do you think the consequence would be of 
any peace agreement as long as the Russians and Iranians are supporting 
Assad and we are indifferent to the Syrian opposition in terms of their 
military needs?
  Mr. McCAIN. I think it is very possible that the Secretary of State 
will call another gathering in Geneva. After all, this is only the 
third. He has another year, and maybe we will have Geneva IV and V.
  Mr. GRAHAM. What leverage do we have over Assad?
  Mr. McCAIN. That is the point. There is no leverage, I say to my 
colleague. Meanwhile, while the Secretary of State is pressuring the 
Free Syria forces and threatening to cut off assistance to them, Russia 
is escalating their bombing campaign and continues the slaughter of 
innocent people. Meanwhile, there are also enclaves around Aleppo and 
other places where people are literally starving to death--literally 
starving to death. There are pictures, my friends, on the Internet, if 
you would like to see it.
  What does our Secretary of State do? He calls Lavrov. He calls Lavrov 
and complains. Lavrov, of course--it would be very interesting to know 
what is going through Mr. Lavrov's mind--but it is very clear that the 
Secretary of State is a supplicant, and this incredibly weak economy, 
with a brutal dictator in charge, is now achieving goals that have been 
age-old ambitions of the Russians. They are now playing a major role in 
the Middle East.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask Senator McCain, may I read to you an exchange?
  This is John Kerry 2 days ago:

       ``[T]here will be a ceasefire,'' Kerry predicted Tuesday in 
     Rome. ``We expect a ceasefire. And we expect an adherence to 
     the ceasefire. And we expect full humanitarian access.''
       Two days later, the Russian bombing hasn't stopped and 
     thousands of Syrians remain starving.

  Not only has the Russian bombing continued, Putin has sent in 
advanced fighter jets to do the bombing.

       Kerry said he was assured by the Russian counterpart 
     [Lavrov] the Russians would stop bombing.

  When asked, Lavrov said, ``Russia's strikes will not cease. . . . I 
don't see why these air strikes should be stopped.''
  Whom is he talking to? The Russians are telling John Kerry to his 
face: We are going to keep bombing. John Kerry keeps telling the world 
they are going to stop bombing. In the meantime, Syrians are being 
slaughtered and starved to death and we are fiddling while Syria burns.
  Mr. McCAIN. I want to mention one other aspect of this with my 
colleague, and that is the refugee issue.
  It is surprising to many people in the world, this flood of millions 
of refugees, not just from Iraq and Syria but Iraq and even as far away 
as Afghanistan. Our European friends have treated it like maybe it was 
an earthquake or flood or natural disaster. It was not a natural 
disaster. It was a natural occurrence when the situation became so 
terrible that people believed they couldn't stay and live where they 
were.
  Why did that happen? Because we watched the Russians, Bashar Assad, 
Hezbollah, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard--we watched them commit 
all of this slaughter in Syria. No one can live in Syria today without 
fear for their very lives, unless they happen to be one of Bashar 
Assad's allies.
  So now we have this huge refugee immigration crisis, which sooner or 
later we are going to have to be involved in, in some way or another, 
and it is a result of the failed policies of this President of the 
United States.
  This President sat by and watched the chemical weapons use. This 
President refused to keep a sustaining force in Iraq. This President, 
when asked by his Secretary of State, his Secretary of Defense, and the 
head of the CIA to provide a safe zone turned it down. I still say to 
my colleague--and I would be interested in his views--that we still 
could establish a safe zone in Syria, where these people could go, we 
could protect them, and they wouldn't have to leave and flood Europe 
and eventually try to come to the United States of America.
  That would be the best thing we could do in the short term, and this 
President refuses to do it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Well, let's get a little closer to the region. John 
McCain and Lindsey Graham have been saying for 3 years now that if we 
don't end the war in Syria--which means requiring the Islamic State, or 
ISIL, to be destroyed with a ground component and not by the air 
alone--we are going to get hit here at home and a Paris-style attack is 
coming our way. This strategy to destroy ISIL will never work. 
President Obama is trying to pass it on to the next the President. We 
have been begging the President to change his strategy in Iraq and 
Syria before we get hit here at home.
  Another casualty of the war in Syria is the neighborhood itself. 
There are more Syrian children going to primary schools in Lebanon than 
Lebanese children. Our friends in Lebanon are being overrun by Syrian 
refugees because of the Hell-on-Earth nature of Syria.
  But one of our best allies in the entire world is the King of Jordan. 
Let me tell you what he has experienced as a result of us as a nation 
allowing Syria to fall completely apart. This was yesterday:

       The leader of a key U.S. ally in the Middle East warned 
     Tuesday that his country [Jordan] is so packed with Syrian 
     refugees, many with ties to the Islamic State terror group, 
     that his nation has reached a ``boiling point.''
       Sooner or later, I think, the dam is going to burst.

  The bottom line is I have been saying this for 2 years now, along 
with Senator McCain: If you don't end this war in Syria, one of the 
victims is going to be the King of Jordan. And the King of Jordan says 
that our welcoming nature has to come to an end.
  Here is the lay of the land. Jordan cannot take any more. Lebanon is 
overrun. The Europeans are pushing back, and you are going to create a 
process where people in Syria have no place to go unless we help them. 
They are going to be slaughtered. They are in between ISIL and Assad. 
What we are suggesting is to create a safe haven inside of Syria where 
they can go without being killed, raped, and murdered so they don't 
have to go to Lebanon, Jordan, Europe or the United States.
  If John Kerry and Barack Obama do not change their approach to Syria, 
Syria is going to be the catalyst for a meltdown in the Middle East. 
Their approach is going to allow the Iranians to control Damascus. Any 
deal done in Geneva under these circumstances is going to have one 
certain outcome: The Russians and the Iranians are going to win, and 
the Syrian people are going to lose. If we don't destroy the caliphate 
with a ground component soon--not just from the air--we are going to 
get hit here at home. The center of the caliphate is in Syria. If we 
don't bring this war to an end soon by getting rid of ISIL and Assad--
which would require both to end the war--Lebanon and Jordan are going 
to fall.

[[Page 1377]]

  So to the Obama administration, when you were Senators, you really 
took it to President Bush. He made his fair share of mistakes, but at 
least he corrected them. Senator Obama and Senator Kerry both opposed 
the surge in Iraq.
  On President Obama's watch, he was handed an Iraq that was becoming 
secure and that was on a glidepath to stability, and he chose to 
withdraw all of our troops--against sound military advice--to fulfill a 
political promise. Three years ago, at the urging of Senator McCain and 
myself, we had Bashar al-Assad on the ropes. His entire national 
security team advised President Obama to arm the Free Syrian Army while 
they were intact. That would have been the end of Assad, and Syria 
would be in the process of healing itself. But President Obama said no 
to his entire national security team. He drew a redline against Assad a 
couple of years ago and said: If you use chemical weapons, I will act. 
Assad used chemical weapons, and nothing of consequence happened. Assad 
is still in power. He will be in power when Obama leaves.
  In the meantime, Russia has introduced itself in the Middle East 
unlike at any time since the early 1970s.
  Now the Iranians are on the ground, fully behind Assad. The balance 
of power has shifted. Assad is in a good place. The Syrian people are 
in a lousy, terrible, horrible place. John Kerry and Barack Obama's 
foreign policy is in free fall.
  I will make a prediction--and I hope I am wrong--that if they don't 
change their policies toward Syria, the region is going to have an 
imbalance that we have never seen in our lifetime. An attack against 
this homeland is coming. It is coming from Syria. It is being planned 
as I speak. We didn't know exactly what they were trying to do before 
9/11, but we were worried that we were going to get attacked by Al 
Qaeda.
  I can tell you exactly where the attack is coming from. It is coming 
from Raqqa, Syria. It is being planned while I speak. Every day the 
caliphate is allowed to exist is another day of danger and peril for 
the United States.
  So if President Obama and John Kerry do not change their policies to 
destroy the caliphate sooner rather than later, we will be hit here at 
home. If we don't get Syria in a better spot soon, Jordan and Lebanon 
are going to be victims of this war.
  To Senator McCain, I just wish to end with that thought.
  Mr. McCAIN. Let me make a couple of additional points and then we 
will yield the floor.
  To go back, these refugees are putting a strain on Europe that may 
basically lead to the dissolution of the European Union. You cannot 
have so many thousands--tens of thousands or more people--flood into a 
country with which they are totally unfamiliar without there being some 
problems there. So the very fabric of the EU may be tested here.
  But one of the things I want to mention to my friend is that the 
apologists for the Obama Administration have constantly and 
persistently pursued a dishonest line of interpretation of history, and 
that is that after the surge was won--and it is a fact--at great 
sacrifice, at enormous sacrifice we had Iraq stable. The attacks were 
down. The Shiite militias were repressed. The battle of Fallujah had 
been won at great cost. There was a bright future that could lie ahead 
for Iraq, but it required a continuing American presence. That was an 
absolute necessity. It was the same reason why we didn't leave Korea 
after the Korean war, the same reason why we haven't left Bosnia, and 
the same reason why we didn't leave Germany or Japan.
  But the apologists in the liberal media--and we all know who they 
are--are saying: Oh, they couldn't stay because they didn't have a 
status of forces agreement through the Iraqi Parliament and it couldn't 
be done. That absolutely made it impossible for us to say.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, could I interject?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  

  Mr. GRAHAM. We couldn't have troops on the ground because Iraqis said 
no. Do we have troops on the ground today, I ask Senator McCain?
  Mr. McCAIN. That is the point. Now we have at least 3,500 troops on 
the ground in Iraq.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Where is the Parliament?
  Mr. McCAIN. We don't have a status of forces agreement. Their 
Parliament has not endorsed it. Where are our liberal friends on the 
other side? Aren't they concerned that there isn't a status of forces 
agreement and we continue to incrementally--a classic example of 
mission creep--gradually increase our presence more and more.
  Actually--and I don't use this line very often but these apologists, 
particularly in the liberal media, the so-called commentators--they are 
lying. They are lying when they say that we couldn't keep a sustaining 
force there. We could, and we could have done it without the approval 
of their Parliament, including the fact that we have troops in a number 
of other countries where their Parliaments haven't approved a specific 
status of forces agreement. So it is really aggravating.
  But the reason why they tell this lie is because if it were really a 
fact that at great sacrifice we had stabilized Iraq and it had a bright 
future at that time, their calls for a complete withdrawal and the 
President's announcement that the last combat soldier had left Iraq--
remember that? Remember that one of his underlings said: We are leaving 
behind the most stable, prosperous, democratic Iraq in history. That 
was the statement. I think it was Blinken or one of those guys. It was 
great.
  We have gotten everybody out of Iraq, just as the President promised 
when he ran for President of the United States. But leading from behind 
doesn't work. Just because you leave a conflict, that does not mean the 
conflict is over.
  Again, this morning, they are trying to make that same mistake in 
Afghanistan, although I pray they have learned that they cannot go to 
what the President originally announced--that they would go to an 
embassy specific force of about 1,000. The question is how many and 
what their missions will be.
  So I think it is important to emphasize that this did not have to 
happen. If we had kept that stabilizing force behind, you would never 
have had Baghdadi break off from Al Qaeda and move to Syria and seeing 
the things we are seeing today.
  I am afraid my friend from South Carolina is right. In fact, I know 
he is right. There will be further attacks on the United States of 
America and Europe because it is inevitable. When Mr. Baghdadi controls 
a large piece of geography from which he can train, equip, motivate, 
and send people out to commit acts of terror, that will happen, and the 
responsibility will lay at the doorstep of Barack Obama and his 
minions.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If I could, just to wrap this up, I wish we were wrong. 
When the President decided to withdraw all troops from Iraq against 
sound military advice, we cautioned--literally begged--the President 
and the Vice President. We went to Baghdad itself to try to help with 
this problem. I remember saying that I think all hell will break loose 
because this is so irresponsible. Iraq is in a good spot, but if we 
leave now, it will all fall apart. I hope I am wrong. Well, we weren't 
wrong.
  When the Syrian people took to the streets to demand more freedom and 
our response was to ignore their plea, when the people of Iran went to 
the streets and the Ayatollah shot them down and our President said 
that he didn't want to discuss negotiations with the regime, when Assad 
had his back to the wall and President Obama declined to take good 
advice to arm the Free Syrian Army and the people of Syria to get rid 
of their dictator, all the things that Senator McCain and I have 
predicted have come true.
  The point of being here today is that the worst is yet to come and, 
God, I hope I am wrong because this is what I think is going to happen. 
I think there is going to be an attack on our country that is being 
planned as I speak, coming from Syria. If we went on the ground in the 
region--not 100,000 U.S.

[[Page 1378]]

troops but mostly people from the region with some of us--we could 
destroy the caliphate and we could disrupt their plans against our 
homeland, but we are not doing that.
  If we don't change our strategy regarding Syria, we are going to lose 
one of the best allies America has ever had, and that is the Kingdom of 
Jordan, because it is being overrun by refugees. The whole seam of the 
Middle East is splitting wide open.
  I will say this. Everybody makes mistakes--Bush, Lindsey Graham, and 
John McCain. The key is to adjust. The problem I have with this 
administration is that they seem unable and unwilling to adjust. If 
they don't change their strategy, we are all going to regret it. As bad 
as it is today, the worst is yet to come.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I just add one other point to my friend from South 
Carolina?
  The President is very good at setting up straw men. He says that we 
only have two choices--to send in a couple of hundred thousand troops 
or to do nothing. Neither Lindsey Graham or I or any smart person I 
know are advocating that.
  What we are advocating is about a 10,000 American force providing the 
capabilities of ISR training, forward air controllers and others, with 
a large contingent of Arab countries that would then move to Raqqa on 
the ground with the use of American air power.
  Please do not be fooled by this constant barrage of untruths that are 
being said about those of us that we want to send in hundreds of 
thousands. We do not. This has to be an Arab coalition with the United 
States a small part of it, and, by the way, have them pay for it as 
well. With the proper American leadership and commitment and 
credibility, which is totally absent now in the region, that could be 
done. Otherwise, we will fight them there or we will fight them here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The senior Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________