SYRIA; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 200

<!-- -->

SYRIA

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak briefly

about the President's announcement today that he is going to be

withdrawing 2,000 American troops from Syria.

Let me be clear. I thought this was a bad idea from the start,

primarily because our troop presence in Syria is not authorized by

Congress. We have had that debate in many forums here, but I believe

this Congress has never authorized the U.S. military to engage in

hostilities against ISIS. I think it is an extrapolation of the 2001

AUMF. It simply belies common sense. So we should never endorse

military activity overseas, no matter what we think about the merits,

if it is not authorized by this body.

But we have also seen over and over again that our relatively meager

military presence in the Middle East has never been enough to change

the political realities on the ground. The training mission was a

disaster. The weapons we gave to the rebels ended up in the hands of

the people we were fighting. Ultimately, we never had enough firepower

there to be able to meaningfully change the balance of power.

But I will concede that the way the President went about making this

decision makes our country an even bigger laughing stock than it

already is in the region, and, frankly, that is pretty hard, because

everybody is asking questions right now about why we pretended we were

going to protect our Kurdish partners in the region if, on the eve of

the Turkish offensive against the Kurds, we decide to pull out.

It makes absolutely no sense to pretend for literally months and

months that we are going to be the bulwark to protect the Kurds against

the Turks and then right on the precipice of the Turkish offensive, we

leave. Why would anybody believe us in the future if we give them our

word?

Again, I am speaking as someone who didn't support the intervention

in the first place, but once you have made that commitment, why not

follow through?

Second, why pull the rug out from under our diplomats in the region?

It is very clear that neither Jim Jeffrey nor Brett McGurk knew

anything about this. In fact, they were just making plans and

suggestions weeks ago to increase our military involvement in the

region, and now they are having to explain why 2,000 troops are

leaving.

If you are going to make a decision like this, make sure the people

who are working for you know about it.

Third, why announce this pullout without answering any questions

about it or without announcing an alternative strategy? Total darkness

from the President and his national security team. An announcement--a

statement made on Twitter and no rollout of a plan for how the United

States is going to continue to try to keep the peace.

So I agree with many of the criticisms that my Republican friends who

have come down to the floor have complained about. This was done in a

ham-handed manner that makes us weaker in the world. But forgive me if

I have a few questions about why my Republican friends chose to speak

up only now with questions about the President's Syria policy.

Where was this outrage when the President of the United States froze

millions of dollars in humanitarian funding that could have saved lives

on the ground in Syria? If they care so deeply about the future of

Syria, why

\\\[\\\[\[Page\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/senate-section/page/S7893) \[S7893\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/senate-section/page/S7893)\\\]\\\]

weren't the Republicans lighting up social media and down on this floor

complaining about the fact that the President refused to forward badly

needed humanitarian dollars to the region.

Where was the outrage when the President effectively pulled the

United States out of the peace process? Remember, the United States,

under the Obama administration--whatever you think about Obama's

strategy--was in the peace process, was a partner to try to figure out

a way forward for Syria. Donald Trump, as has been his strategy

internationally, pulled us out of that diplomatic conversation, left

the diplomatic playing field to the Iranians, to the Russians, and to

the Turks. Where was the outrage when the United States walked away

from the negotiating table?

How about the shutdown of the refugee program? Once again, if your

focus is on the cataclysm of humanitarian disaster on the ground in

Syria, why weren't there all sorts of Members of the Republican Party

coming down to the floor and complaining when the President decided to

not allow any more Syrian refugees--those fleeing terror and torture--

to come to the United States?

What about outrage over the fact that the President proposed cutting

the State Department by 40 percent--the State Department that is going

to be in the driver's seat when we eventually get to the point of

putting Syria back together politically?

Why is there outrage only today? Well, here is the answer, I think,

and it worries me. I think there is outrage today because many Members

of the Republican Party still cling to this outdated, empirically

disproved, fantastic notion that the American military can solve

complicated, convoluted political problems in the Middle East.

We have amazing men and women in the Armed Forces, but there are

limits to what they can do. And history--especially the history of the

last 15 years--tells us that big U.S. military presence in the Middle

East often creates as many problems as it solves.

The Republicans who are complaining about this make it sound as if we

had a couple divisions in Syria. We didn't. We had 2,000 troops. We had

2,000 troops compared to the hundreds of thousands of troops fighting

on behalf of the Syrian regime, the Iranian militias, the Kurdish

forces, the rebel forces, the remnants of ISIS's forces. Two thousand

troops isn't enough to bluff. It isn't enough to gain a negotiating

foothold. It is, frankly, just enough to keep faking it in Syria\\--doing

just enough militarily to say that we are doing something to be able to

sleep at night while never actually doing anything sufficient to change

the balance of power. That has been the story of both President Obama's

and President Trump's policy in Syria. We do just enough to convince

the rebels that they should keep going but never enough to actually

tackle Bashar al-Assad. All we have done is keep the civil war running

and running and running.

I have really terrible news for you all. Assad is going to win this

war. He was always going to win this war because the folks who were on

his side had much bigger equities--Russia and Iran--than the folks who

were on the side of the rebels. Now, that really stinks, that Bashar

al-Assad is going to win, but you have to make policy based on the real

world, not on some world that you imagine.

These neoconservatives are still--even after 4,000 Americans were

killed in Iraq and 30,000 were wounded, they are still clinging to this

notion that a couple thousand U.S. troops are going to be able to solve

the problems in Syria. Listen. I get it. Restraint in the face of evil

is really hard stuff. But hubris in the face of evil is worse.

So what should we be doing? I won't spend too much time on this, but

we should get out of the civil war. We should admit that we have just

prolonged it instead of trying to end it. We should keep working with

our partners and keep using airpower to keep ISIS on the run. We should

rescue Syrians with a generous refugee program, both helping our

partners in the Middle East rescue Syrians and bringing them to the

United States when they pass our vetting program.

We should stop angering our allies all over the world, but

particularly in that region, and get back into the diplomatic game.

Finally, we should stop believing that our only leverage in

negotiations in Syria or anywhere else in the world is military force.

Put up a promise of massive investment in Syria after a peace deal is

signed--likely, frankly, costing a fraction of what we spent in Iraq--

and you will discover that you quickly get a seat at that table again.

But it is time that we give up on this notion that these brave,

capable American soldiers can fix these complicated, tribal, political,

economic, and religious problems in the Middle East. They are brave,

and they are capable, but there are things they can do, and there are

things they can't do. Every time we put our troops in situations where

they are doomed to fail, when we are not prepared to give them the

resources to succeed, as was always the case in Syria\\--spare me this

notion that 2,000 American troops were going to be able to fix Syria\\--

every time we put them in situations where they can't win, we undermine

American influence, and we undermine the power of our military.

I don't agree with how the President did this. Once you have made

that commitment, boy, it doesn't make a lot of sense to pull the rug

out from under our partners right as the tough stuff starts to come. I

don't agree that he didn't do it in consultation with anybody in this

place or anybody on his national security team. I think that his

announcement today is ham-handed and embarrassing, but his instincts

aren't entirely wrong on the question of what American troops can and

can't do in the Middle East.

I can't believe I am saying this. I think the President may have

learned more than many of my friends in the Senate have.

I yield back.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized along with my

colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, to enter into a

colloquy.

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

The Senator from New Hampshire.

&nbsp;