PRESIDENT'S SYRIAN POLICY AND RUSSIA; Congressional Record Vol. 162, No. 43

<!-- -->

PRESIDENT'S SYRIAN POLICY AND RUSSIA

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, briefly, the Senator from South Carolina

and I discussed this announcement that Russia will begin withdrawing

some military forces from Syria. It obviously signals Vladimir Putin's

belief that he has bombed and killed enough of the opponents of the

murderous Assad regime to assure Assad's survival.

For 4 years, this administration--this President--stood by as the

Assad regime slaughtered nearly half a million people in Syria. Then,

when Assad appeared weak, it watched as Putin intervened militarily and

protected his brutal regime, in a move that the President described as

Putin going into a \\\`\\\`quagmire.'' Well, apparently now Vladimir Putin is

leaving that \\\`\\\`quagmire,'' and he is leaving a solid Bashar Assad in a

position of strength. He is leaving thousands of dead moderate

opposition that he has indiscriminately bombed, and the United States

has their begging bowl out, asking and pleading that they somehow reach

some agreement again in Geneva.

It is really embarrassing to watch this President and this Secretary

of State as they continue to beg Vladimir Putin and his stooge Lavrov

as they continue to place Russia in a position of influence they have

not had since Anwar Sadat threw them out of Egypt in 1973.

They now have a major role to play in the Middle East. They have a

military base. They have a naval base. They have upgraded airfields,

and they have now solidified Bashar Assad's position in power.

Is there anybody who believes that Russia will agree to an

arrangement that Bashar Assad or his stooge doesn't remain in power? Of

course not. Aren't we tired of begging Vladimir Putin? Aren't we tired

of watching the United States and the young men we trained and equipped

being bombed by Vladimir Putin and killed and murdered? Don't we

sometimes grow a little tired of that? It is no wonder that the United

States of America has no standing and no influence in the region.

I don't often quote from the New York Times. I would ask my colleague

if he has seen this:

The Russian move may . . . be a reflection that Mr. Putin

is now supremely confident in Mr. Assad's renewed stability

and can afford to step back a bit and play statesman. Mr.

Putin has achieved many of his main goals: bringing Russia

back to center stage as a global power; preventing, on

principle, regime change by outside powers, particularly

Western ones; gaining a stronger foothold in Syria; picking

off Russian jihadists on the Syrian battlefield; and

strengthening Mr. Assad.

I wish to ask my friend from South Carolina: Isn't it obvious what is

going to happen next; and that is, an increase in fighting in eastern

Ukraine, more Ukrainians slaughtered while we refuse to give them

defensive weapons, but just sufficient amount of violence and killing

to prevent the United States of America or the Europeans from taking

any significant action? Indeed, won't there now be pressure on the part

of the special interests and the industrialists, particularly in

Germany, to lift the sanctions on Vladimir Putin?

Mr. GRAHAM. I think you are right, I say to Senator McCain.

Let's look at what our military leaders say rather than just look at

what political people think. General Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, in a hearing you chaired today was asked: What is

Putin up to? What do you think he is trying to do here?

He said: Well, all I can tell you is the reason he came into Syria

was to destroy ISIL and help fight ISIL. He has proven that he did not

do that. He didn't try to do that.

So what General Dunford said was that basically Putin lied about why

he came to Syria. If he is leaving Syria, the job against ISIL is far

from done. But I think you nailed it, I say to Senator McCain. The job

of propping up Assad has been accomplished.

So what General Dunford said is that the reason that Putin came into

Syria was not to destroy ISIL but to help his stooge, his puppet Assad.

He believes he achieved such military superiority on behalf of Assad by

bombing the people we trained that he can now leave.

So at the end of the day, he is not leaving. A naval base and an air

force base will be in Syria. He said: We are withdrawing our forces,

but, of course, we will have a naval presence and an air base.

Here is what I would say. If he needs to help Assad in the future, he

will. Geneva has become a joke. There is no way you are going to

negotiate a successful agreement when Assad is backed by Russia and

Iran. The opposition has been abandoned by the United States and the

free world. The Russian President has bombed the people the American

President trained to take Assad out.

Mr. McCAIN. What does the Senator from South Carolina think that does

to our reputation when we arm, train, and equip young men, send them in

to fight, ostensibly against ISIS or Bashar Assad--although, in this

case ISIS--and we stand by and watch the Russians slaughter them from

the air?

Mr. GRAHAM. I think it sends a signal that you can't rely upon us.

You have two training programs--one by the CIA and one by the

Department of Defense. The people trained outside the Department of

Defense have been wholesale slaughtered by the Russian air attacks, and

we have done nothing about it.

\\\[\\\[\[Page\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-162/senate-section/page/S1569) \[S1569\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-162/senate-section/page/S1569)\\\]\\\]

What does the region say? We have two enemies--Assad and ISIL. Our

unwillingness to confront Assad has created a sense of abandonment in

the entire region. Assad is a puppet of Iran. Iran is the mortal enemy

of the Sunni Arab states.

So what has the President accomplished here? He said Assad must go.

He trained people to help take him down. Russia came in and said Assad

will not go. They have attacked the people we have trained, and we

basically have abandoned the free Syrian opposition.

Now we are in Geneva talking about a peace agreement where the whole

balance now is in Assad's favor. Does anybody really believe there is

military jeopardy for Assad? And without his being in jeopardy, how do

you get an agreement the Syrian people can live with? If Assad or his

henchmen stay in power, how do you ever end the war in Syria?

So what we have accomplished is that we have given the Russians more

influence in the Mideast than at any time since 1973. We have allowed

Iran basically to dictate the terms in Damascus. We have jeopardized

our relationship with our Arab partners. We have put in question

Americans' reliability in terms of the people inside of Syria.

The Syrian policy of Barack Obama has done enormous damage. Without

Russia being involved, none of this would have happened.

Mr. McCAIN. The tragedy of all of this, I would say to my friend, is

that when the United States of America was required to stand up because

of the commitment of the President of the United States if the Bashar

Assad regime had used chemical weapons and slaughtered--it is the

gruesome pictures that you and I have seen--and then backed off, that

was one of the seminal moments that American credibility disappeared.

Here we are now still refusing to arm, train, and equip young men to

fight against Bashar Assad and, in fact, making them pledge that they

would only fight against ISIS. It is not ISIS that is barrel-bombing

them. It is not ISIS that is dropping chemical weapons. It is not ISIS

that has brought in thousands and tortured and beaten and killed. ISIS

is our enemy. ISIS is evil. But to somehow excuse the behavior of

Bashar Assad with the Russians' indiscriminate bombing is one of the

most disgraceful chapters in American history in my view.

Mr. GRAHAM. To build on this, several years ago Russia took by force

Crimea. This was not a fair election. It is pretty hard to have a fair

election when there is a Russian tank parked in front of your yard.

Good luck saying you don't want to go to Russia.

We have done nothing other than sanction Russia. Russia is still

engaged in provocative behavior. We told him not to go into Crimea. We

told him not to dismember Ukraine. He did. He is stronger, not weaker.

We told him not to use military force to help Assad, who is the Butcher

of Damascus. He did. We pleaded with him not to attack non-ISIL

targets. He did. He destroyed the opposition to Assad. Russia is in

league with Iran. So the biggest winner of Russia's involvement on the

ground in Syria has been the Iranians, which is the most destabilizing

group of people in the entire Mideast. The biggest loser has been the

free Syrian opposition, the Syrian people themselves, and close behind

is the American reputation in the region.

I want the administration to know that your handling of Syria has

been a disaster on multiple levels. It has emboldened Iran. It has made

Russia stronger. We are losing credibility in the region at a time when

the region needs leadership. If you go to Geneva and you close out a

peace deal that is a joke that allows Assad or somebody--Bob Assad, not

Bashar Assad--to stay in power, if you allow a peace agreement where

the Iranians control Damascus and Russia has a naval and air force base

and more influence than we do, what have you accomplished?

I hope and pray the administration will stop this insane desire to

bring Syria to a conclusion where the conclusion is going to make the

whole region subject to blowing up. A successful conclusion is not

having Iran being the dominant force inside of Syria, Russia having

more influence, an air base and a naval base, and the Syrian people

losing the ability to replace their tormenter, and ISIL having a magnet

for future recruitment, which is an Iranian-backed Assad. That is not a

successful outcome.

What do you think, I ask Senator McCain?

Mr. McCAIN. For the last 5 years, we have been writing a shameful

chapter in American history. To sum all of this up, leading from behind

doesn't work. If America leads from behind, somebody else is going to

be in front. If the United States leaves conflicts and creates vacuums,

then bad things happen.

Look at a map of the Middle East in January of 2009, when this

President came to the Presidency of the United States, and look at that

map now--the way ISIS has metastasized, the way hundreds of thousands

have been murdered and millions are on the march as refugees. We still

have apologists for this leading from behind, a policy which is

described as \\\`\\\`Don't do stupid stuff.'' This is the result of

leadership that has left the scene in a way that we have not seen since

the 1930s, in the days of Neville Chamberlain and \\\`\\\`peace in our

time.''

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. COONS. 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;