SYRIA; Congressional Record Vol. 159, No. 117

<!-- -->

SYRIA

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my friend the

distinguished Senator from Ohio for including me in his unanimous

consent request. I will briefly speak about an amendment.

We all understand that the issue is going to come before this body to

send activity into Syria. I am very much opposed to any kind of force

in Syria, but if it happens, we want to be sure there is some

protection there. So I have an amendment that even if my amendment

passes, I will still oppose the effort of this President to send

activity into Syria, and I believe it would precipitate a war.

My amendment is very simple. If the President takes military action

against Syria, sequestration of our Armed Forces would be delayed for 1

year. We are talking about the fiscal year where we would take another

$52 billion out of our military.

What Asad has done and continues to do is reprehensible, but the

United States can't afford another war given the current state of our

military. The threats from Syria and the Middle East are not emerging

threats. These threats have been around for decades. We knew they were

there. There is nothing new about them. Yet the readiness capabilities

of our military continue to be decimated by drastic budget cuts.

Sixteen Air Force combat flying squadrons have been grounded. We

finally, after 3 months, put them back in the air again, and right now

we know it costs more to get them back in a state of readiness than the

money we saved from grounding them for 3 months. Our naval fleet has

been reduced to historically low levels, the end strength of our ground

forces has been cut by more than 100,000 personnel, and hundreds of

thousands of DOD civilian employees have been furloughed. Just in my

State of Oklahoma, in one of my installations, 14,000 civilian

employees have been furloughed.

We can't have it both ways--continuing to cut the funding of our

military while still expecting to meet our national security

requirements. As military readiness and capabilities decline, we accept

greater risk, and, as I have always said, risk equals lives. Every time

we have a hearing, we have our combatant commanders come in and talk

about the risks. Risk means lives. As I have always said, risk equals

lives, and allowing these cuts to continue while proposing to send our

forces into harm's way is immoral and reprehensible.

Over the last week I have heard a lot from the President and his

administration about how any action in Syria will be limited. I suggest

there is no such thing as limited war. Once we decide to strike, we

can't predict where it will end or how the situation might escalate.

Let's not forget that we have troops currently on the ground in Jordan

and Turkey, marines guarding our Embassies, and sailors and airmen

stationed around the region. We have already heard that Iran is

ordering its terrorist proxies to retaliate by attacking U.S. interests

in the region, including our Embassy in Iraq. The State Department has

ordered nonessential personnel to evacuate our Embassy in Lebanon. The

threats to our forces are real.

I wish to read for my colleagues excerpts from a letter that was

written by two ladies, Rebekah Sanderlin and Molly Blake. These are

spouses of two of our servicemen. They are responding--much more

eloquently than I could ever hope to--to the immense hardship our

military is enduring under sequestration and to the misguided belief

that a military strike on Syria can be done in isolation--that it won't

affect our troops and their families.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the

Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in

the Record, as follows:

An Open Letter to CNN Reporter Barbara Starr

\\\[From The Huffington Post, posted Sept. 4, 2013\\\]

Dear Ms. Starr: We are writing to let you in on a secret.

It's a big one--so get to a fresh page in your reporter

notebook and have your pen poised and ready.

You told your viewers last Thursday that there was \\\`\\\`no

question'' that the military could afford to go into Syria

and that you \\\`\\\`don't think it's really going to affect

military families at all.''

Here's some inside information for you: There is no such

thing as a person-less war. Our military cannot afford for

Americans to forget that wars and battles and military

strikes are fought by troops, that troops are people, and

that those people have families.

In our military communities this summer we couldn't even

afford to pay federal employees for a five-day work week.

Military families can't get doctors' appointments and can't

get the counseling services needed to grapple with the

problems we already have, problems largely created by almost

12 years of war. And while Congress was busy sending a

warning letter to the president to ensure they get to sign

off on whether or not we go to war, they managed to ignore

military families when the sequester hit. Today clinic hours

are being slashed--along with pretty much every other service

military families need. Walking around our communities

lately, it doesn't look like we can afford much of anything--

and certainly not a whole new war.

And that's just taking \\\`afford' literally.

Figuratively, the picture is even grimmer. An entire

generation of military kids have grown up with a parent they

know primarily through Skype. Couples are trying to piece

together marriages that have been badly fractured by more

years spent apart than together. We grew hopeful that better

days were coming as we watched the end of the Iraq war, and

we're thrilled that the end of our involvement in Afghanistan

is nigh, and yet now all of cable news is breathless and

giddy with talk of war in Syria.

You boast, in your bio, that you have exclusive access to

Lt. Gen. Russel Honore and you've interviewed several

secretaries of defense and other important people at the CIA.

You may very well have Sec. Hagel on speed dial--but that

doesn't give you the right to toss around your thoughts on

how military families may or may not be affected by military

action. Not until you've stood in our shoes for longer than a

three-minute live shot.

You see, Barbara, there's no such thing as \\\`no boots on the

ground.' We in the military community sigh and shake our

heads when we hear talk like that from the people on TV.

Perhaps you consider a relatively small number of troops to

be the same as zero--but we don't. We know that each of those

service members is somebody's somebody.

As journalists, we like to show both sides of the story. So

we would like to also voice our thanks. For your careless

words have aimed a giant floodlight on the military-civilian

divide. Blue Star Families Director of Research and Policy,

Vivian Greentree said it best:

\\\[\\\[\[Page\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-159/senate-section/page/S6290) \[S6290\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-159/senate-section/page/S6290)\\\]\\\]

We hear a sense of angst in our membership and throughout

the military community. How can we be in the middle of the

fall out of sequestration--furloughs, program cuts, loss of

mission readiness--we have families who can't get medical

appointments. They are all wondering how they will manage if

the situation in Syria continues to escalate. They wonder how

will it affect them. Not, if it will affect them. But, how.

\\\`\\\`That statement, in all its small-minded glory, captures

the civilian-military divide more clearly than any survey

ever could.''

And maybe someday we will be able to fight whole wars

without using a single human . . . And Rosie the Robot will

clean our kitchens while we tackle our morning commutes in

flying cars. But today, in 2013, we can't have a \\\`surgical

strike' without someone saying where to drop the bombs or

where to aim those missiles. And those planes that drop the

bombs? The destroyers that carry the missiles? They have

pilots, captains and crews. All humans. Even the \\\`\\\`unmanned''

drones have human pilots, and the psychological wear and tear

on them is staggering. Planes take off from airfields in

foreign lands or from aircraft carriers, both of which are

staffed by thousands of American somebodies, just like those

destroyer ships. At every turn in a military operation you

will find people. Intel analysts, linguists, flight crews,

and cooks. Even war plans, regardless of whether they were,

as you stated, \\\`\\\`on deployment anyway'' rely on thousands of

people who will be pulled to a new duty, which causes

reshuffling far and wide in the military community.

And this, most definitely, affects military families.

The big question is, as you said, \\\`\\\`will it work?'' and, as

we learned from the most recent wars, it bears recalling that

things don't always go as planned. But that's not the only

question. Do not kid yourself, Barbara, and don't you dare

kid the viewers who trust your reporting.

Sincerely,

Rebekah Sanderlin and Molly Blake,

Military Spouses.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to quote from the letter I just

submitted for the Record, and I ask my colleagues to listen to the

quote. These are two ladies who are spouses of servicemen. They said:

There is no such thing as a person-less war. Our military

cannot afford for Americans to forget that wars and battles

and military strikes are fought by troops, that troops are

people, and that those people have families. In our military

communities this summer we couldn't even afford to pay

Federal employees for a five-day work week. Military families

can't get doctors' appointments and can't get counseling

services needed to grapple with the problems we already have,

problems largely created by almost 12 years of war. Today

clinic hours are being slashed--along with pretty much every

other service military families need. Walking around our

communities lately, it doesn't look like we can afford much

of anything--and certainly not a whole new war.

I am still quoting now these wives of our military men:

And maybe someday we will be able to fight whole wars

without using a single human, but today, in 2013, we can't

have a surgical strike without someone saying where to drop

the bombs or where to aim those missiles. And those planes

that drop the bombs? The destroyers that carry the missiles?

They have pilots, captains, and crews. All humans. Even the

\\\`\\\`unmanned'' drones have human pilots, and the psychological

wear and tear on them is staggering. Planes take off from

airfields in foreign lands and from aircraft carriers, both

of which are staffed by thousands of American somebodies,

just like those destroyer ships. At every turn in a military

operation you will find people. Intel analysts, linguists,

flight crews, and cooks. Even war plans . . . rely on

thousands of people who will be pulled to a new duty, which

causes reshuffling far and wide in the military community.

And this, most definitely, affects our military families.

Again, that is a quote from two of the wives of our current

servicemen. I hope all of my colleagues will read this letter. I hope

they understand that the decisions we make this week about whether to

go to war in Syria have a human dimension.

If we expect the brave men and women in our military to go to foreign

lands and risk their lives on our behalf, we have a moral obligation to

ensure that they and their families have the support and the resources

that are required. Sequestration has already inflicted severe damage on

our military, and we are now only a couple of weeks from another $52

billion being slashed from an already devastated military budget.

I have been clear that I don't support the President's call for

military action in Syria. He still hasn't presented Congress and the

American people with a plan for what he wants to accomplish, how he

intends to accomplish it, or how he intends to pay for it. Will the

President pay for this operation with more furloughs and by grounding

more squadrons again? The CNO has already come forward and stated that

if operations against Syria extend into October, he won't be able to

afford it and will likely require supplemental funding from Congress.

Furthermore, the President hasn't told us how a strike in Syria fits

into a broader strategy for the Middle East. What we decide to do is

not just about Syria. It is bigger than that. This is about the growing

threat from Iran, stability in the Middle East, and our commitment to

Israel and allies and our ability to respond to other contingencies

that are there.

I recall knowing what was going to happen. This is 4\\\\1/2\\\\ years ago,

back when President Obama was first elected, his first election. I knew

that when he came out with his first budget, he was going to do

something devastating to the military. So I put myself into

Afghanistan, knowing, with the tanks going back and forth, that I would

be able to get the interest and the attention of the American people,

and it worked. So in that very first budget 4\\\\1/2\\\\ years ago, he did

away with the early fifth-generation bomber then, the F-22; did away

with our future combat system--the first ground capability increase in

about 50 years; did away with our lift capacity, the C-17. Then, the

worst thing, which I hope doesn't turn out to create the worst problem

for America, he did away with the ground-based operation in Poland.

That was just the first budget. That was 4\\\\1/2\\\\ years ago. Since that

time, in his extended budget, he has taken $487 billion out of the

military, and with sequestration it will be another $\\\\1/2\\\\ trillion.

This just can't happen.

It is not just me who is saying this. People would expect it more

from me. I am the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services

Committee. I have gone there and worked with these guys and noticed the

problems they have. I would suggest that not just me but Admiral

Winnefeld, who is the second highest military guy, the Vice Chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said:

There could be, for the first time in my career-- An

admiral speaking now, the second highest person in our

military--

instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and

we will have to say we cannot.

And then we go to the very top person, General Dempsey, the Chairman

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said, \\\`\\\`Our military force is so

degraded, so unready, it would be immoral to use force.''

I only say this because we are going to be facing this, and I would

be opposed to this even with my amendment to postpone the sequestration

of the military for 1 year. However, if that passes, I will still

oppose this taking place. I don't think many people in America realize

what has happened to our military under the Obama administration.

Well, I have just stated what has happened. This is certainly not a

time when we would use force in Syria. Keep in mind that General

Dempsey said it would be immoral to use force, we are so degraded, and

that is exactly what we will be voting on in the next couple of days.

With that, I yield the floor.

&nbsp;