U.S. TROOP WITHDRAWAL FROM SYRIA

<!-- -->

U.S. TROOP WITHDRAWAL FROM SYRIA

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, earlier today, this morning, the

administration announced the intent to remove all American troops--not

a large presence, but all Americans troops--from Syria. I want to be

clear, as I have been all day about this, that I believe it is a

catastrophic mistake that will have grave consequences for the United

States, for our interests, and our allies in the months and years to

come. I want to take a moment to come here and explain why.

The rationale behind the decision we were given today by the

administration is that there is no longer a need for U.S. presence in

Syria because ISIS has been defeated. Just a week ago, the President's

own envoy to the global coalition on ISIS said this, and I want to

quote from the statement that he gave last week to the press. He said:

\\\[T\\\]he end of ISIS will be a much more long-term initiative.

Nobody is declaring a mission accomplished. We know that once

the physical space is defeated we can't just pick up and

leave.

This was a quote from the President's own envoy to the global

coalition on ISIS--not 6 months ago, 6 days ago. We don't have time

here or I could take up all the time of the Senate to outline statement

after statement from military and diplomatic officials in the

administration basically echoing the same point.

The point that we are making is this. ISIS still controls territory,

particularly, in the Euphrates River valley of Syria. From the

territory they still control, they generate money, they control the

population, and they produce propaganda videos. Even if that is taken

away, ISIS is on its way to turning into an insurgency--meaning, no

longer an organization that

\\\[\\\[\[Page\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/senate-section/page/S7882) \[S7882\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/senate-section/page/S7882)\\\]\\\]

controls vast spaces of land or has a capital city--an insurgency like

we saw in Iraq, an insurgency like what al-Qaida operated like and

continues to operate like. Insurgencies in many ways are even harder to

defeat because they don't wave a flag and tell you where they are,

because they meld into the population by day and then wreak havoc and

suffering by night.

I am not here to deny there hasn't been true progress made against

ISIS. There absolutely has. If you look at what ISIS had, what ISIS

controlled when this administration began and where they are today,

this has been a substantial achievement, but we have to finish the job.

The job is not finished.

Why has ISIS's presence in Syria been degraded? It is because the

United States, with a very limited military presence--we are not

talking Afghanistan here with tens of thousands of troops. We are not

talking Iraq here with a massive surge. We are talking about a very

capable but light footprint of American primarily trainers and people

there to assist, although they most certainly can fight and have done

so in the past.

Working alongside a ground force made up of the Syrian Democratic

Forces--primarily Arabs--and the Kurdish forces from the YPG, who are

highly capable fighters from the Kurds, they have been on the ground

fighting with our assistance and our direction and sometimes our direct

involvement against ISIS in the Euphrates River valley. They are the

reason why in that part of Syria ISIS's control has rapidly degraded.

They are the reason, but they are the ones fighting. That has been a

difficult thing to achieve because the No. 1 objective of the Kurds is

to protect Kurdish cities and towns in northern Syria.

There is a longstanding dispute between the Kurds and Turkey. There

is a Kurdish organization in Turkey, and then there is one affiliated

with them housed in northern Syria and in cities that are Kurdish

cities. Their No. 1 priority is maintaining their cities. That is what

they care about the most. Getting them to actually take time out from

that interest and confront ISIS was not easy. It has been an enormous

achievement to partner and colocate with them in fighting and in

degrading ISIS in that area.

As I said, it has not been easy because ISIS is not their top

priority. Their No. 1 priority is maintaining control of the Kurdish

towns and cities in northern Syria and, more importantly, preventing

Turkey and the Turkish military from taking it from them.

They have been threatening to pull out of this ISIS effort for a long

time, most recently when Erdogan went around saying: I am on the verge.

I am going to invade. I am coming in. Any day now I am going after the

Kurds in Syria.

We already knew that if that happened, many of these YPG forces--the

Kurds--would abandon the fight on ISIS and immediately be pulled into

defending the Kurdish cities. Now that are we are pulling out, now that

we are retreating, now that we are abandoning this effort, I can

guarantee you that the Kurdish forces are going to leave. They are

going back to the Kurdish areas to prepare to confront the Turkish

military activity that they have announced and that could be coming at

any moment. You know what that means? That means that there will no

longer be anyone on the ground in the Euphrates River valley attacking

ISIS.

Let me tell you what comes next. Now the pressure is off from ISIS.

Now they can really regroup. This is going to give them an enormous

propaganda victory. As they take more and more territory, they are

going to brag about it. That is going to help them recruit new fighters

and resurrect themselves. It is going to give them more territory. It

is going to give them access to more money.

All of that is going to allow them to expand their insurgency plan.

They are going to have more people, more money, and more territory to

do it from because, again, the Kurds are going to leave. Now that we

are leaving, they are leaving, and no one will be fighting ISIS on the

ground in the Euphrates River valley.

In fact, ISIS might even be able to restart its specialized military

training in that area. We are allowing ISIS to come back. Before long,

we are all going to be talking about ISIS again--producing videos,

kidnapping people, beheading people, taking territory, terrorizing

people, and doing it as an insurgency, which is even harder to fight,

as I said earlier.

Why is that happening? Who are the winners of all this? Let me tell

you, I think the one winner here has been Erdogan. He has absolutely

played us on this. It is truly stunning. He has spent months pressuring

the United States to abandon the Kurds--diplomatically and in phone

calls to the President and to others. He has spent months doing that.

He has been putting pressure on the one side while also threatening

military action on the other, in essence, saying: I am coming into

Syria\\--the Turks--and I am going after the YPG--the Kurds--and I know

U.S. troops are embedded alongside them, and you should be careful

because we are coming in.

He has been doing this for months. The goal of it the whole time was

to separate the United States from the Kurds, to get us to break up

this arrangement that we had with them to fight ISIS, and it worked. He

has achieved it. It is truly unbelievable that he has been able to get

us to back down.

I want everyone to think about this additional complication. Turkey

is a member of NATO. Article 5 of NATO says that if a NATO member is

attacked, you all have to come to their defense and it is attack on all

of us. While there is some wiggle room about what the appropriate

response should be, the bottom line is that the Turks have in the past

threatened to invoke article 5.

Think about this for a moment. Think about for a moment if after

being attacked, the Kurds--both in Turkey and in Syria\\--decide to

attack back, as they will to defend themselves. Turkey is going to say:

We are under attack from Kurdish forces and the YPG. We invoke article

5.

I want you to think for a moment about what position that puts the

United States in. We have a choice. We can stand behind our article 5

commitment to NATO, but if we do so, we are going to have to help the

Turks defeat--meaning kill--the very people who we were just colocated

with today and yesterday and for months. The very people we have been

working with to defeat ISIS for over 2\\\\1/2\\\\ years are now people that,

if we allow article 5 to be invoked by Turkey, we are going to have to

join in trying to defeat them--meaning kill.

The other alternative is to not respect article 5 and not come to

their defense, and then you have placed the entire NATO alliance in

doubt because it will have been invoked for the second time in its

history, and the United States didn't respond to it. We lose either

way. We either help them kill the Kurds, our partners, as recently as

today, or we ignore article 5. That sounds pretty dramatic, and there

is some wiggle room as to what the appropriate response would be.

Let there be no doubt, Erdogan is the kind of geopolitical hardball

player to trigger this sort of response, and he has threatened to do it

in the past--truly, unbelievable.

Who is the other big winner? Russia. In fact, their embassy in the

United States already put out a tweet celebrating the decision. Why?

First of all, because America is now out. At some point, people are

going to have to sit down and decide what is the future of a post-ISIS

Syria. You know who will be at that table? The Turks will be at that

table because they are going to have a military presence in northern

Syria. The Iranians are going to be at the table because they are the

closest allies Assad has. Assad will be at the table, and Putin will be

at the table. Guess who will not be at the table? The United States of

America. Vladimir Putin, of course, is celebrating this decision

because America basically walked away and gave up its seat at the

table. We have no presence there any longer, and we have turned over

this country and its future and its meaning in the region to Vladimir

Putin and Iran and Assad.

Also, another reason why Putin is a big winner is because you can

just imagine those meetings now when Putin goes to the Middle East and

meets with the Egyptians and the Saudis and the Jordanians, and,

frankly, even the Israelis. You know what he

\\\[\\\[\[Page\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/senate-section/page/S7883) \[S7883\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/senate-section/page/S7883)\\\]\\\]

will say to them? He will say to them: I don't know why you are

counting on America. I don't know why you are relying on America. They

are unreliable.

Vladimir Putin will say: Look at me. I stood by Assad. Even after the

whole world came after him, I stood by him. I didn't retreat. Look at

America. They abandoned these Kurds to be slaughtered by the Turks and

maybe by the regime, and you are going to put the future and the

security of your country in the hands of an unreliable and erratic

partner like the United States?

It is a huge victory for Putin in that regard.

By the way, put yourself in the position of the Kurds facing an

onslaught from the Turkish military.

You have now given them two choices. They can partner up with Russia

as their protector against Turkey or they can partner up with the

regime in Iran. That is the choice we have left them with.

The other big winners in all this are Iran and Hezbollah.

For a long time, Assad has allowed Iran to use Syria as a transit

point to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon so Lebanon can threaten and attack

Israel. They will now be able to step up those efforts.

There is no U.S. presence in Syria. There is no U.S. seat at the

table, and you can fully expect that Iran is going to step up their

engagement in Syria with Hezbollah.

Let me tell you why that is a problem. I will get to that in a

moment. It has to do with Israel, but here is the bottom line. You can

fully expect now that Iran is going to step up its own presence through

the IRGC and through Hezbollah and through the militias they have

empowered in the region right on the border with Israel.

Iran now has the ability to put weaponry and killers right across the

Golan Heights, right on the border with Israel.

The other big winner in all of this, of course, is Hezbollah. As I

said, they now have expanded their area and their supply route.

So I would be remiss if I didn't mention that with all this talk of

ISIS, there is still an al-Qaida presence in Syria. They were called

Nusra Front. Now it is Hurras al-Deen. They can change their name all

they want, it is al-Qaida. They have operatives in Syria, and al-Qaida

spends a lot of time planning external operations. We thank our men and

women in Homeland Security, in the military, in our security systems

and intelligence systems for protecting us, but al-Qaida spends all day

long plotting and thinking about how to strike the United States around

the world and here in the homeland, and the lack of a U.S. presence in

Syria means that the Syrian branch of al-Qaida, Hurrus al-Deen, now has

the ability to operate in a space that is even more desirable than what

they have today.

The last winner in all this is surprising because you may ask: What

does it have to do with Syria? It is China. You can just imagine the

meetings now that China is going to be having throughout Asia. You have

all these countries in Asia which see this sort of growing conflict

between the United States and China, and they are trying to figure out

how do we stay out of this fight, but if we are forced to pick, which

side do we pick? They prefer us. We are more reliable. We are more

capable. We believe in democracy and human rights and respecting them

and that sort of thing, but China in those meetings is going to say:

America is a power in decline. America is unreliable. America is

erratic. The same argument that Putin is going to use in the Middle

East and in Europe is the argument China is going to use against us all

over the world and particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.

Those are the implications of these kinds of decisions. They will

increasingly go to places like Japan and South Korea and others and

say: You know, do you really want to put all your eggs in the American

basket because they are an unreliable ally. Look at what they did to

the Kurds in Syria.

Now, of course, there are losers, and obviously Israel, in this part,

is one of them. The statement from the Prime Minister of Israel is

pretty telling. He said: It is an American decision. We are not going

to interfere with it, but we are going to do whatever it takes to

protect our interests in this area. Translation? They are going to step

up their attacks. They are already conducting strikes inside Syria.

Every time they see a dangerous rocket system moving toward Hezbollah,

anytime something that looks like it could threaten Israel from Syria

pops up, they go in there, and they blow it up.

They are going to have to step up those efforts now because as those

efforts increase, they are going to have to get more aggressive, and

eventually they are going to kill Iranians. They are going to kill a

lot of people in Hezbollah, but they are going to kill Iranians, and

the Iranians are going to respond. Hezbollah is going to respond, and

they are probably eventually going to respond by launching a vast

volume of rockets coming over from Lebanon, and Israel is going to have

to respond to that.

Suddenly, we have the next Israel-Hezbollah war, except this one is

going to be much deadlier than the one 10 years ago because now

Hezbollah has more rockets, better rockets that have longer range and

precision in their guidance. So even if Israel has this incredible

defense system, it can be overwhelmed by volume. It is such a small

country. What do you think is going to happen when population centers

in Israel cannot be protected from these attacks? Israel is going to

respond, as they always have had to do in their self-defense, with

disproportionate force, and we are going to have an all-out war

potentially between Israel versus Iran and Hezbollah, and who knows

where that leads.

I assure you, the United States is going to be called upon to help in

that regard, at a minimum, by supplying Israel and maybe more. Who else

could that pull in? This is not a game. There are serious repercussions

if you think forward about what could happen next and how quickly this

could destabilize the region and how quickly the pullout of a small

American presence could lead to a much larger one down the road.

Ultimately, Israel is an enormous loser here because by the United

States retreating, we have given the green light for Iran to expand its

presence right on their border. This is the closest--other than Lebanon

and Hezbollah--this is now the closest Iran has ever been to Israeli

territory, just across the Golan Heights.

So think about it for a moment. You are Israel. You have problems in

Judea and Samaria with the Palestinian Authority, you have issues in

Gaza, you have Hezbollah in Lebanon, and now you have Iran with a

growing presence just north of you in Syria. You are encircled. This is

the predicament this helps creates.

By far, the biggest loser in this endeavor is the United States of

America. We have surrendered our influence in the outcome of this

conflict in Syria. At some point, nations are going to sit down and

figure out what Syria looks like moving forward, and we will have zero

role to play in it. It will be decided by the Turks and the Russians

and primarily the Iranians and Assad, and we will have no role to play

in it.

We have also undermined other nations' trust in the reliability of

the American alliance, and the implications of that are extraordinary.

If you think about the world today and nations like Japan and South

Korea and Saudi Arabia and Egypt, these are countries that either can

immediately or may in the future decide they need nuclear weapons to

protect themselves: South Korea from North Korea, Japan from China,

Saudi Arabia from Iran, Egypt from Iran. The reason many of these

countries have been willing not to develop nuclear weapons is because

the United States has, in the case of South Korea and Japan, directly

assured their security, and that has kept the peace.

What happens when more and more nations develop weapons of mass

destruction the way India and Pakistan have--about each other. Well,

you have more weapons of mass destruction, and then it creates the

possibility of miscalculation or, even worse, that a government--for

example, in Saudi Arabia or in Egypt--is overthrown and some radical

regime takes hold and they have nuclear weapons or they proliferate and

sell it to people and that is used.

This is far-fetched for some people. This is reality. This is how

foreign policy should be made, not just thinking about what is in front

of you today but what could happen and the chain of

\\\[\\\[\[Page\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/senate-section/page/S7884) \[S7884\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/senate-section/page/S7884)\\\]\\\]

events that could be triggered by a decision. This is not a game. This

is serious stuff.

On top of all that, losing the trust of our allies and nations around

the world, losing our influence in a solution in Syria\\--ISIS is going

to reemerge. It is not going to be the same ISIS it was before,

controlling vast amounts of territory, but I will tell you what, al-

Qaida never controlled vast amounts of territory. Operating from caves

and hideouts throughout the Middle East, they carried out 9/11 and

other threats against the United States and the homeland that were

thwarted.

ISIS is going to reemerge now. They are once again going to be able

to recruit people. They are going to have an insurgency that is going

to be able to strike and perhaps externally plot. They are going to be

able, from that presence they have in Syria, to influence their

affiliates everywhere from the Philippines to Central Africa, to other

countries in the region.

That is why I am here to tell you this is a catastrophic decision.

Forget, for a moment, about no one being notified; it was just

announced at the last minute. I haven't heard a single member of the

administration--not one, not the Secretary of Defense, not the

Secretary of State--who is going to own this decision? Who is willing

to step forward and tell the American people or Congress, here is why

we are making this decision, and here is the strategy it is in

furtherance of? Someone explain that. It is important. The American

people deserve to know. I haven't heard that today. We haven't heard it

before.

We thought we had the outlines of some strategy here. All that has

been taken away. Why are we doing this? What is the rationale and what

comes next? What is the plan to keep ISIS from reemerging? What is the

plan to keep Iran from growing its presence in Southern Syria and

threatening Israel? What is the plan to deal with the al-Qaida element

that already exists there? What is our role? What role are we going to

play in a post-ISIS and post-al-Qaida Syria\\--and particularly as it

relates to whether it can be used as a base of operations against our

interests and our men and women in uniform stationed in the region.

None of that has been outlined.

Is anyone in the administration going to own this and explain it?

Because so far we haven't heard it, and this is an important public

policy decision.

I hope I am wrong about all this. I hope this all works out, but it

is not going to, and I am telling you, these are the kinds of decisions

that define Presidencies. These are the kinds of mistakes that end up

haunting a nation for years and years and years thereafter.

It is the hard lesson of Iraq. It is the hard lesson of decisions

made at other times in our history. I hope this can be reversed. I hope

this can be reexamined because I honestly believe--put politics aside--

I honestly believe this is a catastrophic decision for America's

national security interests. If this stands, we in this Congress and we

as a nation are going to be dealing with the consequences of it for

years to come.

We will remember this day as the day that started it all. We will

remember this day as a major blunder, in which by ignoring the advice

of every diplomatic and military official who has spoken about this

publicly for the last 2 years, we made a decision, for reasons that

have not yet been explained, that triggered--that triggered--a series

of events that no one foresaw at the time but proved to be much more

dangerous and much costlier than anything we are doing there now.

So I honestly and sincerely hope someone in the administration is

listening and that there is a chance to reverse or amend this decision

before it is too late.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas

&nbsp;