TURKEY AND SYRIA; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 164

<!-- -->

TURKEY AND SYRIA

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address the current

situation in Syria.

First, I welcome the Vice President's announcement of a cease-fire,

which will prevent further loss of life. I hope the agreement is

honored. But at the heart of this matter is a central question of why

these terms and assurances were not negotiated before the President

consented to withdraw our troops.

Let me briefly recount what has happened in the past 7 days since the

United States announced our withdrawal. The Kurds, suffering loss of

life and property, have allied with Assad, Russia has assumed control

of our previous military positions, and the United States has been

forced in many cases to bomb our own facilities to prevent their

appropriation by Russia and Turkey.

The announcement today is being portrayed as a victory. It is far

from a victory. Serious questions remain about how the decision was

reached precipitously to withdraw from Syria and why that decision was

reached.

Given the initial details of the cease-fire agreement, the

administration must also explain what America's future role will be in

the region, what happens now to the Kurds, and why Turkey will face no

apparent consequences. Further, the cease-fire does not change the fact

that America has abandoned an ally. Adding insult to dishonor, the

administration speaks cavalierly, even flippantly, as our ally has

suffered death and casualty. Their homes have been burned, and their

families have been torn apart.

We know the truth about our Kurd allies. They lost 11,000 combatants

in our joint effort to defeat ISIS. We dropped bombs from the air and

provided intelligence and logistics behind the lines. The Kurds lost

thousands of lives, and 86 brave Americans also lost their lives so

tragically.

It is argued that the Kurds were fighting for themselves. Of course

they were. That is the nature of an alliance. We fight together, each

pursuing our own vital interests. America leaves no soldier behind,

often at great cost in blood and treasure. We recover our dead and our

wounded, and we free our men and women who are held captive. This is a

matter of American honor and promise. So, too, is the principle that we

stand by our allies, that we do not abandon our friends.

The decision to abandon the Kurds violates one of our most sacred

duties. It strikes at American honor. What we have done to the Kurds

will stand as a blood stain in the annals of American history.

There are broad strategic implications of our decision, as well.

Iranian and Russian interests in the Middle East have been advanced by

our decision at a time when we were applying maximum pressure on Iran.

By giving them a stronger hand in Syria, we have actually weakened that

pressure. Russia's objective to play a greater role in the Middle East

has also been greatly enhanced. The Kurds, out of desperation, have now

aligned with Assad. So America is diminished, and Russia, Iran, and

Assad are strengthened.

So I ask how and why this decision was reached. I serve on the

Foreign Relations Committee, and given the Syria decision taken by the

administration, I might be forgiven for wondering why our committee

even exists. I say this because apparently the decision to leave Syria

was made without consultation with the committee or even with the

committee chairman and ranking member.

Just 3 weeks ago, our subcommittee held hearings to receive an

extensive analysis of the conditions and the way forward in Syria. It

was presented to us by the Syria Study Group, a bipartisan,

congressionally mandated commission tasked with providing an in-depth

assessment of the conditions in Syria and to provide recommendations

for American strategy going forward. So far as I am aware, the

administration made no effort to contact those who attended that

hearing or to speak with the Syria Study Group to be able to understand

the content in their extensive published report.

I ask whether it is the position of the administration that the

Senate--a body of 100 people representing both political parties--is to

be entirely absent from decisions of the magnitude just taken in Syria.

Some argue that we should not have been in Syria in the first place

because there was not a vote taken by the Senate to engage in war

there. I disagree. Congress has given the President legal authority and

funding to fight against terrorists in Syria.

However, for purposes of argument, even if one believed that no

authorization had been given, that is really irrelevant to the decision

as to the withdrawal once we have allied with a people--the Kurds--

committed to defend them, and together defeated ISIS. Once you jump in

the ocean to save a drowning soul, you don't turn around with the

excuse that you didn't have to jump in in the first place. It is a

matter of commitment.

\\\[\\\[\[Page\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-165/senate-section/page/S5882) \[S5882\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-165/senate-section/page/S5882)\\\]\\\]

Others argue that we should just get out of a messy situation like

this. Middle East, they say, has had wars going on forever; just let

them have at it. There is, of course, a certain logic to that position,

as well, but again, it applies only to the original decision as to

whether we should have gone into Syria. Once we have engaged and made

the commitments we made, honor, as well as self-interest, demands that

we not abandon our allies.

It has been suggested that Turkey may have called America's bluff--

telling the President they were coming no matter what we did. If that

is so, we should know it, for it would tell us a great deal about how

we should deal with Turkey now and in the future.

Some have argued that Syria is simply a mess, with warring groups,

subgroups, friends and allies shifting from one side to the other, and

thus we had to exit because there was no reasonable path for us to go

forward. Are we incapable of understanding and shaping complex

situations? Russia seems to have figured it out. Are we less adept than

they, and are our principles to be jettisoned when we find things get

messy?

The administration claims that none of these reasons are accurate.

Instead, the President has said that we left to fulfill a commitment to

stop endless wars, to bring troops home, to get them out of harm's way,

and perhaps to save money. I find these reasons hard to square. Why?

Well, we withdraw 1,500 troops in Syria, but we are adding 2,000 troops

in Saudi Arabia. All totaled, we have some 60,000 troops in the Middle

East.

Assuming for the sake of understanding that getting out of endless

wars was the logic for the decision, why would we take action so

precipitously? Why would we not warn our ally, the Kurds, of what we

were about to do? Why would we not give them time to also withdraw or

perhaps to dig in to defend themselves? Clearly, the Turks had a heads-

up because they were able to start bombing within mere hours. I simply

don't understand why the administration did not explain in advance to

Erdogan that it is unacceptable for Turkey to attack an American ally.

Could we not insist that together we develop a transition plan that

protects the Kurds, secures the ISIS prisoners, and meets the

legitimate concerns of Turkey, as well? Was there no chance for

diplomacy? Are we so weak and so inept diplomatically that Turkey

forced the hand of the United States of America--Turkey? I believe it

is imperative that public hearings be held to answer these questions,

and I hope the Senate will be able to conduct those hearings next week.

I note in closing that I also hope the cease-fire agreement is

honored and that Turkey ends its brutal killing, but I note that lives

are already lost and American honor has already been tarnished. We once

abandoned a redline; now we abandon an ally. We need answers. What has

happened in Syria should not happen again. And we, the Senate, must

take action to make sure that it does not.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the

situation in Syria. Let me commend my colleague Senator Romney for his

very thoughtful and very timely and very important comments.

We all recognize that the situation in Syria is highly fluid. I think

it is important to state the case with respect to the President's

decision to acquiesce to President Erdogan's offensive against the

Kurds. The President's decision is a disaster for our partners in the

fight against ISIS and United States foreign policy more broadly.

While I welcome the temporary cease-fire announced a short time ago

and hope that a permanent cease-fire can be achieved, it does not

absolve President Trump of his responsibility for his betrayal of our

Kurdish partners and his role in unleashing violence and instability in

northern Syria. It is not clear whether Turkey made any concessions as

part of the deal struck with the U.S. delegation or whether Kurdish

forces will comply. If not, I am concerned that additional violence is

likely to follow and we will have little leverage to prevent it. In

fact, there is a quote attributed to the Turkish Foreign Minister,

Mevlut Cavusoglu, by the White House reporter for CNN. She quotes the

Turkish Foreign Minister as saying:

This is not a cease-fire. We will pause the operation for

120 hours in order for the terrorists to leave. We will only

stop the operation if our conditions are met.

So, indeed, even this supposed cease-fire may not materialize as a

cease-fire.

But the reality is that the blood of many Kurds is on President

Trump's hands, and thousands of hardened ISIS prisoners could be let

loose as a result of his hasty and uninformed decision.

President Trump's decision to abandon our close partners also

strengthens the hand of Erdogan, Putin, Assad, and Khamenei. Those are

not friends; they are, in many cases, adversaries and antagonists.

Members of the administration claim that the U.S. Government opposed

the Turkish incursion, but the President's own actions and statements

make clear that he gave Erdogan a green light. The President ordered

our military to begin a phased withdrawal from Syria last December--a

decision that prompted the resignation of former Secretary of Defense

Mattis and that surely gave the Turks the impression that he would fold

when pressed by Erdogan. Not surprisingly, he did. In that phone call,

Erdogan was pushing against an open door. He knew it. The President

knew it. That is why the Turks went across the border.

Stating that we should let the Kurds and Turks fight it out because

of their longstanding grievances, as the President has said repeatedly,

betrays both our national security interests in the Middle East and our

own American ideals.

It is shameful that the White House's statement that was released

after the President's call with Erdogan did not even criticize the

planned Turkish incursion or warn of potential consequences if it went

forward. It wasn't until the following day, after a bipartisan and

international outcry, that the President began to express any concerns

about Turkish plans while at the same time reiterating his invitation

for Erdogan to visit the White House next month. It is impossible to

read the President's initial statements as anything but acquiescence.

Furthermore, the President's statements over the following days have

sought to distance the United States from the Kurds and the foreseeable

consequences of his decision with regard to ISIS and the humanitarian

challenges in northern Syria.

The violence we have witnessed over the last few days in northern

Syria has been the direct result of an impulsive President who has made

decisions that are counter to the advice of our national security

experts. President Trump has often expressed disdain for the career

military, diplomatic, and intelligence professionals our Nation relies

on to develop and implement sound national security policy. We are once

again seeing the ramifications of his incompetence.

The President's stunning ignorance of the complexities in the Middle

East was on full display over the weekend in a tweet in which he seemed

not to have an understanding of the location or identity of the

separate Kurdish groups with whom we have partnered in Syria and Iraq.

The Secretaries of Defense and State both insist they were consulted

by the President on this decision. Maybe so, but it is clear that he

didn't heed their advice or that of our national security experts. I am

not aware of any security experts who advocated for standing by while

the Turkish military carried out an offensive against our Kurdish

partners.

In fact, on October 2--just 4 days before the phone call between

Presidents Trump and Erdogan--the State Department's Special Envoy for

Syria, Joel Rayburn, publicly warned: We certainly think that a

conflict along the Turkey-Syria border would serve the interests of all

the bad actors in the conflict and in the surrounding region--whether

that is ISIS or al-Qaida or the Iranian regime or what have you.

That was President Trump's Special Envoy.

The President's capitulation to Erdogan runs directly counter to all

of the administration's stated objectives in Syria. The

administration's stated strategy is to, No. 1, defeat ISIS; No. 2,

force the removal of Iranian-aligned

\\\[\\\[\[Page\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-165/senate-section/page/S5883) \[S5883\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-165/senate-section/page/S5883)\\\]\\\]

foreign forces from Syria; and No. 3, achieve a negotiated political

settlement to the Syrian civil war in line with the United Nations'

resolutions.

The security and humanitarian catastrophe that President Erdogan has

unleashed with Trump's approval will make achieving any of these goals

nearly impossible. The violence in northern Syria over the last few

days has led to the displacement of at least 160,000 people, the

suspension of humanitarian assistance into affected areas, the escape

of an unidentified number of ISIS detainees, and the horrific killings

of unarmed civilians, including incidents that Secretary of Defense

Esper has described as potential war crimes.

Just weeks ago, at our urging, the SDF removed personnel from border

areas, relocated heavy weapons, and destroyed defensive fortifications

in northern Syria. They did so even in the face of a continued Turkish

military buildup along the Syrian border because they believed the

United States and Turkey had agreed to a security mechanism in good

faith that could avoid bloodshed. It seems that they were wrong to put

their faith in this administration.

The Turkish incursion into Syria has undermined years of effort

against ISIS by the United States and the international community.

Despite the elimination of the so-called physical caliphate, ISIS is

not defeated. Former Secretary of Defense Mattis correctly warned over

the weekend that ISIS will resurge if pressure against the group isn't

sustained.

Perhaps even more damaging than the current situation in Syria is the

long-term impact of the President's decision on our standing in the

world and our ability to achieve the goals outlined in the national

defense strategy of his administration. The President's shortsighted

abandonment of the Kurds is a strategic disaster that raises grave

doubts among our allies and our friends about whether the United States

under this President can be counted on to defend our shared interests.

Given the diverse national security challenges we face, we must

attract and rely upon partners who share our interests. Our military

leaders often promote the virtues of the \\\`\\\`by, with, and through''

approach, especially when it comes to counterterrorism.

Since 9/11, we have built partnerships with local forces throughout

the world--from North and East Africa, to the Middle East, and across

the Pacific--to enable efforts against violent extremist groups. We

have sought to apply exquisite capabilities only possessed by the U.S.

military to support local partners doing the preponderance of the

fighting and dying in service to our shared objective of containing and

defeating such violent groups.

Contrary to President Trump's assertions, we are not engaged in an

endless war in Syria. In fact, the Kurd's partnership with the United

States should be viewed as a model of how to leverage an \\\`\\\`economy of

force'' commitment of U.S. military capabilities to achieve strategic

effects, thereby obviating the need for large numbers of U.S. personnel

to be put at risk. In Syria, relatively small numbers of U.S. forces on

the ground enabled a Kurdish and Arab ground force of approximately

60,000 personnel known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF. With

our help, the SDF liberated millions of innocent civilians from the

violent oppression of ISIS and defeated the so-called physical

caliphate. Some have estimated that the SDF lost more than 10,000

fighters taking on ISIS.

It is true that many who joined the SDF did so to liberate their

homes from ISIS; however, it is also true that even after their homes

were liberated, the SDF--Kurds and Arabs alike--continued to pursue

ISIS all the way through the Euphrates River Valley, where the last

remnants of the physical caliphate were ultimately defeated earlier

this year.

Those in the SDF were not only fighting for themselves; they were

also fighting for us. They were fighting to help ensure that there were

no more ISIS-directed or -inspired attacks like those carried out in

Paris, Brussels, Istanbul, Orlando, and San Bernardino.

After the SDF successfully liberated the territory that was formerly

controlled by ISIS, it also maintained custody of more than 10,000 ISIS

detainees--including more than 2,000 foreign fighters--even when many

of their home countries refused to take them back. Given the sacrifices

of the SDF in the fight against ISIS, it was particularly insulting for

President Trump to imply that the SDF may now be releasing ISIS

detainees to get us involved, in his words, in the ongoing violence in

northern Syria.

As our military leaders will tell you, our partnership with the SDF

was not only built on our shared opposition to ISIS but also on the

trust established between our forces in their fighting shoulder to

shoulder against a common enemy. They deserved more from the United

States and President Trump in the face of demands by Turkey's

autocratic leader. Given all the SDF has sacrificed in furtherance of

the fight against ISIS and our partnership, our betrayal of their trust

is nothing short of appalling.

Again, just days before President Trump's fateful call with Erdogan,

the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East publicly

stated: \\\`\\\`We, quite frankly, could not carry out our national defense

strategy if it weren't for partners like \\\[the SDF\\\].''

I fear that the President's impulsive abandonment of the Kurds has

done significant and lasting damage to the standing of the United

States in the world and has shaken the confidence of our allies and

partners. We are losing valuable partners in a region where the United

States has critical national security interests.

Congress and the international community must send a clear,

bipartisan signal to the President that we do not condone the Turkish

incursion into northern Syria or the President's decision to abandon

the Kurds.

President Trump must rescind the invitation to President Erdogan to

visit the United States in November. We should not welcome an autocrat

who is responsible for endangering our troops on the ground in Syria,

the release of dangerous ISIS fighters, the mass displacement of

hundreds of thousands of civilians, and violence against noncombatants,

which, if reports are true, may amount to war crimes.

The United States does not need to stand alone in condemning the

violence in northeastern Syria. Our partners in the counter-ISIS

coalition share our concerns about the damage the Turkish incursion has

caused to our efforts to defeat ISIS and the potential humanitarian

costs. The United States should take the lead within the United Nations

and NATO to organize efforts to denounce Turkey's actions and restrain

the strategic consequences. We must also redouble diplomatic efforts to

seek a negotiated settlement to the Syrian civil war that is consistent

with U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 2254 and that protects the

equities of the SDF and civilians who are living under their

protection.

Unfortunately, the greatest impediment to securing our national

security interests in northern Syria and bringing about an end to the

conflict there appears to be President Trump's inability to grasp the

strategic significance of his actions.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise to call attention to the dire

situation that continues to unfold in northern Syria.

Turkey embarked on a reckless and brutal intervention on October 9,

2019, ostensibly to clear northern Syria of terrorist elements. It has

ironically dubbed this operation \\\`\\\`Peace Spring.'' The departure of

U.S. forces in the days just prior to this incursion left nothing

between Turkish military forces and the predominantly Kurdish militia,

known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF. Up until the cease-fire

agreement that was announced today, the SDF bore the brunt of the

Turkish assault.

The Kurds are deeply stung by what they see as America's abandoning

them--this after a long, hard, and successful fight against ISIS.

At the height of its power, ISIS controlled territory larger than the

United Kingdom. As many Americans know, ISIS directed and inspired

terrorist attacks on our homeland, in communities across the United

States, and staged numerous attacks against our troops overseas. ISIS's

branches across the globe have conducted unimaginable atrocities,

including targeting Christians, Yazidis, Kurds, and others who

\\\[\\\[\[Page\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-165/senate-section/page/S5884) \[S5884\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-165/senate-section/page/S5884)\\\]\\\]

opposed ISIS's corrupt interpretation of Islam. Examples of these

atrocities are the heartbreaking stories of so-called Yazidi brides who

were forced into marriages with ISIS fighters. They were raped and

brutalized repeatedly and were forced to decide whether to abandon

their children or to make an escape. There are multiple stories of

ISIS's terror that has been inflicted on those with disabilities, such

as babies being suffocated simply for being born with Down syndrome.

The United States, together with a coalition of over 30 countries,

engaged in a campaign to rid the world of ISIS and to restore peace and

stability to that region. Yet it was not a nation-state that bore the

brunt of the fighting against ISIS. The Kurds and the Arabs who made up

the Syrian Democratic Forces took the fight to the heart of the

caliphate. With the help of U.S. Special Operations Forces and

airstrikes, the SDF liberated lands held by the terror group,

imprisoned thousands of terrorist fighters, and restored hope to

hundreds of thousands who suffered under ISIS rule.

In our fast-moving and quickly changing world, it is easy for some to

forget the terrible threat ISIS once posed while they were at their

most powerful, but it would be wrong to think we can now allow

ourselves to take our foot off of our enemy's throat.

Even now, ISIS cells are seeking to take advantage of the chaos in

northern Syria to reconstitute and once again pose a direct threat to

Americans right here in our homeland.

You cannot watch what is unfolding in Syria without being

fundamentally concerned about the security of our friends and our

neighbors. A recapitalization of ISIS is a threat to us all.

It is for this reason that I have introduced a resolution which calls

on the Department of Defense and the Department of State to provide a

plan within 30 days which will outline a strategy to ensure ISIS will

never again threaten Americans or our allies now or in the future.

This strategy will address the ongoing threat that ISIS poses

regionally and globally and will outline the plan to prevent an ISIS

resurgence, contain ISIS expansion, mitigate the threat ISIS poses to

the United States and our allies, and describe how our gains against

ISIS since 2014 will be further protected.

We cannot afford to take our eyes off of this vital task of ensuring

the lasting and irreversible defeat of ISIS. We must consolidate our

gains to rid the world of this terrible organization and insist on a

sound strategy to ensure our success to that end.

Too many of our partner forces and indeed American brothers and

sisters in arms have fought and died in this fight, and we must ensure

that those sacrifices were not made in vain.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

&nbsp;