BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, events that are taking place in Syria and in the Middle East in general but in Syria and around the world show an incredibly dangerous deterioration of American national security, of our standing in the world, and can have consequences that are far- reaching and very damaging to the United States of America.
Yesterday the Washington Post--not known as a rightwing conservative periodical--had an editorial entitled ``Whether or not the Syrian cease-fire sticks, Putin wins.'' It begins by talking about the circumstances concerning what happened with this so-called agreement, which, according to the New York Times today, has been objected to by the Secretary of Defense and other members of his own administration. The Washington Post editorial says:
When Russia launched its direct military intervention in Syria a year ago, President Obama predicted its only result would be a quagmire. Instead, the agreement struck by Secretary of State John F. Kerry on Friday with his Russian counterpart offers Mr. Putin everything he sought. The Assad regime, which was tottering a year ago, will be entrenched and its opposition dealt a powerful blow. The United States will meanwhile grant Mr. Putin's long-standing demand that it join with Russia in targeting groups deemed to be terrorists.
I might add that when the Russians came in, the first people they attacked were the moderate people whom we trained, armed, and equipped, slaughtering them.
If serious political negotiations on Syria's future ever take place--an unlikely prospect, at least in the Obama administration's remaining months--the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian backers will hold a commanding position.
In exchange for these sweeping concessions, which essentially abandon Mr. Obama's onetime goal of freeing Syria from Mr. Assad and make the United States a junior partner of Russia in the Middle East's most important ongoing conflict, Mr. Kerry promises that humanitarian lifelines will be opened into the besieged city of Aleppo and other areas subjected to surrender-or-starve tactics. The Syrian air force will supposedly be banned from dropping ``barrel bombs,'' chlorine and other munitions on many areas where rebels are based-- though there seem to be loopholes in the deal, and its text has not been made public.
I might add that the text has not been made available to the Congress of the United States or the American people.
It goes on to say:
If that really happens, and lives are saved, that will be a positive benefit. Perhaps it's the only one available to a U.S. policy that swears off, as doomed to failure, the same limited military measures that Russia has employed with success. But Mr. Putin and Mr. Assad have agreed to multiple previous truces, in Syria and, in Mr. Putin's case, Ukraine-- and violated all of them. Their reward has been to gain territory and strengthen their strategic positions, while receiving from the United States not sanction but more concessions and proposals for new deals. If the regimes observe their promises in this case, it may be because the time to exploit this U.S. administration--which has retreated from its red lines, allowed Russia to restore itself as a Middle East power and betrayed those Syrians who hoped to rid themselves of a blood-drenched dictator--is finally running out.
In other words, there may be a time when Vladimir Putin and Bashar Assad decide on an actual cease-fire, which has been violated time after time. After they have gained sufficient control, after they have driven any of the moderate forces out of the major regions of Syria-- and for all intents and purposes, thanks to Hezbollah; the Iranian Revolutionary Guard; Russia; and more Iranian involvement by people like Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard; Hezbollah from Lebanon--they will have gained enough control over Syria that they will be satisfied with what they have and then will seek a cease-fire.
This is one of the most disgraceful chapters in American history. Look at the map of Syria and Iraq in the Middle East in 2009 when Barack Obama became President of the United States and look at a map today. When Barack Obama came to power in 2009, Al Qaeda was defeated. The situation was under complete control thanks to the sacrifice of an enormous amount of American blood and treasure.
When my colleagues and the liberal media and others criticize what happened in Iraq and what a colossal failure it was, maybe there is an argument about going in. There can be no intellectual honesty unless you mention the fact that we had it under control. Al Qaeda was defeated. The casualties were down. All we needed to do was keep a residual force there to maintain control. Instead, the President of the United States decides to take everybody out, and the rest is history. Al Qaeda moves to Syria, Al Qaeda becomes ISIS, and the rest is history.
Why is it that the liberal media and my friends on the other side of the aisle who continue to talk about how Iraq was such a disaster fail to mention that thanks to GEN David Petraeus and brave young Americans who sacrificed time after time, we had it won? And the reason given for pulling everybody out was that we couldn't get a Status of Forces Agreement ratified by the Iraqi Parliament. We now have 4,500 permanent and thousands who are rotating in and out. Where is the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi Parliament? Wasn't that the reason given by these experienced and talented members of the President's National Security Council, experts on--I believe science fiction was one of them, and others who have never heard a shot fired in anger and have no experience in the military of any kind? They are the ones who said we can't stay because we haven't got the Status Of Forces Agreement, so we pulled out, and Al Qaeda rotated to Syria and became ISIS and now we have a caliphate. We may be able to finally destroy them, although this is the classic of incrementalism--50 troops here, 20 troops there, 50 more here, a gradual escalation in targets. Still, I have been told one-third or maybe as many as half of our aircraft that went out and flew on a mission returned without having fired a weapon or having dropped a bomb, and everything is run from those experienced tacticians and leaders at the National Security Council.
Here we are now, after Hezbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the Russians came in, and the President declared a ``quagmire,'' we now have a ceasefire that, according to our view and others, Putin wins. By the way, there is also a New York Times story that shows there are severe divisions within the administration as to whether this was a good idea.
I draw my colleague's attention to this morning's Wall Street Journal. Syria's Regime is pressing a systematic effort to alter the country's demographics and tighten Assad's grip on power, U.N. officials and opposition figures said.
How do they do that? They surround an area, starve them out, and barrel bomb them. Barrel bombs are horrible weapons, my friends. They barrel bomb them and kill a whole bunch of them and then they declare a ceasefire and let them leave and take over that particular area. One of the most brutal and inhumane types of warfare is being practiced by Bashar al-Assad as we speak.
There are a lot of things going on in the world, which apparently includes the dictator in the Philippines now saying he is going to buy Russian and Chinese equipment and throw Americans out of the Philippines. The Philippine leader, Duerte, is seeking arms from Russia and China, signaling a shift in its alliance with the United States. The Chinese continue their aggressive behavior in the South China Sea, and of course we are now seeing the other Middle Eastern countries deciding they have to go their own way because the United States of America cannot be relied on for assistance as the situation continues to deteriorate.
I ask my colleague and friend from South Carolina for his comments about the deteriorating situation and this latest ``agreement.'' I don't know what number that agreement is, by the way, but it certainly isn't the first nor the second nor third that has been reached in the hopes that somehow--and each time greater and greater concessions are made to Bashar al-Assad and now acknowledgment of the Russians as our senior partner.
I just ask my colleague: Are we supposed to enter into some kind of alliance with Vladimir Putin in this conflict in Syria? Vladimir Putin dismembered Ukraine, bombed the people we armed, trained, and equipped when they first went into Syria--I don't know how many were slaughtered--put enormous pressures on the Baltic countries, and has occupied parts of Georgia. Does anybody on Earth believe our new partners will insist that Bashar al-Assad leave Syria?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to add to my colleague's assessment when he said that 400,000 people were killed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAIN. All with families--barrel bombs, poison gas. By the way, there has been a recurrence of poison gas. Six million people are now refugees and it is putting an enormous strain on Europe. We can look around the world and see where all of this weakness is reflected, whether it be in Syria or whether it be in Iran, which threatened two American surveillance planes as they flew over the Straits of Hormuz-- Philippines leaders seeking arms from the Russians and the Chinese, Chinese continued aggression in the South China Sea, and the list goes on and on.
In summary, I agree with the editorial in the Washington Post yesterday: ``Whether or not the Syrian cease-fire sticks, Putin wins.''
This election is going to be a very important one.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT