SYRIA; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 64

<!-- -->

SYRIA

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the magnitude of atrocities and devastation

in Syria caused by ISIS and the Assad regime, with support from Russia

and Iran, is appalling. When this calamity began in 2011, I doubt

anyone predicted it would come to this: hundreds of

\\\[\\\[\[Page\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/senate-section/page/S2314) \[S2314\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-164/senate-section/page/S2314)\\\]\\\]

thousands of people killed; half the population of the country

displaced, many living as refugees in neighboring countries; whole

cities reduced to rubble riddled with landmines and boobytraps.

For years, I, like others here, have called for a comprehensive U.S.

strategy for responding to the Syrian crisis that is grounded in

cooperation with the international community, to be presented to

Congress. I have also supported hundreds of millions of dollars in

humanitarian aid to desperate Syrian civilians. We must at least do

what is within our power to address the needs of those affected while

efforts are made to bring the violence to an end.

I have also defended Congress's sole authority to declare war, which

should always be based on a clear strategy. I opposed the Obama

administration's proposal for the authorization for the use of force in

Syria in 2013 because it was overly broad and would have ceded to the

White House power reserved to Congress under the Constitution. I have

also opposed the manner in which President Trump has twice launched

attacks against Syria without approval from Congress.

While I recognize and appreciate the considerable precautions that

were taken in the early hours of April 15 by the U.S. military to

prevent civilian casualties and avoid targeting Russian assets in

Syria, whenever military operations are conducted the outcome is never

certain. Things can go terribly wrong. In this instance, instead of

demolishing two or three Syrian chemical weapons facilities, we could

have triggered a shooting war with Russia, and Israel and Iran might

have quickly followed suit. What began as a missile attack lasting a

few minutes could have ignited a regional war. That is a risk that

Congress must be given the opportunity to weigh.

The use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity and a

violation of international law that cannot be tolerated, but it is also

a fact that conventional attacks by the Assad regime have caused far

more deaths of innocent men, women, and children. The Assad regime has

been slaughtering its own people for more than 7 years by dropping

barrel bombs, laying siege to cities to prevent access to food, water,

and medicine, and using poison gas. While we all want to act decisively

in the face of such atrocities, the United States cannot solve this

crisis using Tomahawk missiles. All such attacks can do, it appears, is

degrade, most likely only temporarily, Assad's ability to use chemical

weapons. This was demonstrated in the aftermath of President Trump's

first military response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in April

2017. It was conducted with great fanfare, without congressional

authorization, and it failed to prevent future attacks. President Trump

has now launched a second attack without the approval of Congress, and

he has proclaimed \\\`\\\`mission accomplished.''

Why didn't the President seek Congress's approval? And what is the

mission? How would we have responded if the attacks had triggered an

escalation of violence, potentially spinning out of control? Those

critical questions need answers.

Perhaps the most fundamental question for this administration is what

does President Trump seek to achieve in Syria? Is it limited to

defeating ISIS and punishing Assad for using chemical weapons? Are we

willing to accept Russia and Iran determining Syria's future? If not,

what is the strategy for ending the war, if Russia continues to block

diplomatic efforts in the U.N. Security Council? How does the White

House explain cutting aid for refugees overseas, withdrawing the United

States from the Global Compact on Migration, limiting the resettlement

of Syrian refugees here to only 11 people so far in 2018, compared to

790 last year during the same period, and suspending $200 million in

U.S. aid for civilians in Syria? Those funds are intended to help

improve the livelihoods of Syrians impacted by the war, including to

provide access to basic services.

Does the White House believe that it is in the national interest to

conduct attacks against Syria, at the risk of triggering a wider war

and after failing to produce the intended results in the past, but that

it is not in our national interest to provide aid to Syrian civilians

in areas controlled by our partners?

I am also concerned about what these attacks against Syria may reveal

about President Trump's willingness to direct a military attack

elsewhere without obtaining the consent of Congress, for example,

against North Korea or Iran.

The conflict in Syria obviously has no easy solution, and it is

apparent that it has no military solution. It is the President's job to

explain what our strategy is, including how we can overcome Russia's

intransigence at the United Nations amidst mounting concerns that we

will abandon the Syrian people, before he fires off another volley of

missiles that do not get us any closer to a solution and which may have

the opposite effect.

&nbsp;