BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
MATTHEWS: U.S. Congressman Mo Brooks is a Republican from Alabama.
Congressman, did you hear Senator Nelson? He offered up the idea of
the limited commitment of troops, to basically help with the spotting of
targets by our air attack, and basically not -- I wouldn`t say not infantry
moving into combat against the enemy. Where do you stand in terms of
restricting the president?
REP. MO BROOKS (R), ALABAMA: Well, I`m a little bit perplexed by his
comments.
Personally, I think this needs to be the standard. America should not
go to war unless we`re committed to do the things that are necessary to
win, which means that we should not restrain our commander in chief if in
fact that is what America wants to do.
In that regard, the president of the United States has to show that he
has a strategy that can result in the extermination of the Islamic State.
Second, the president has to show a willingness to be committed to the
cause. There will be casualties, American casualties, and as was seen from
the Islamic State, we might as Americans be confronted with some very
horrific events that are on the Internet or on TV.
And we have to be prepared for that if we`re going to embark in this
endeavor. And I want to know that our president is committed to the task,
and has a strategy that can win.
And if he`s not committed or does not have a strategy, then we should
not engage. Rather, it should be a much greater multination effort,
perhaps a United Nations-led effort.
MATTHEWS: That has a good sound to it. I think it sounds like Doug
MacArthur. There is no substitute for victory.
And I`m just wondering, in that case, when we`re fighting an enemy
like that, we would occupy and then liberate the people later and move and
we would come home. What do you if you go in and fight ISIS and you
liberate areas of Iraq and areas of Syria? Who gets that territory behind
your front? Who do you give it to? That`s always been my question.
BROOKS: Well, I would hope what would follow a defeat of the Islamic
State is, with respect to Iraq, you would have an Iraqi government that
would be able to reassert control over its territory, and similarly a
government in Syria, which brings up another question.
Is the president going to use this as a subterfuge for toppling the
Syrian regime? As you know, within the past couple years, this White House
and its secretary of state then, Hillary Clinton, called for a toppling of
the Syrian regime. So this is a very delicate situation with the Islamic
State, with the Syrian regime, with al Qaeda on the perimeter, with Iran
not that far away.
And I think the president needs to express in a way that gives the
American people confidence that we have a winning strategy and the
commitment to win. It does us no good to get embroiled in war if we`re not
going to end up with a victory.
MATTHEWS: OK. Thanks so much. That was a very clear statement by Mo
Brooks, congressman from Alabama.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT