Repealing the Authorizations for Use of Military Force Against Iraq--

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, we hear from Democrats a lot these days about ``ending the Iraq war.'' Let's pause for a moment to remember the first time they ``ended the Iraq war.''

President Obama pulled American troops out of Iraq just over a decade ago. The ``dumb'' war, as Obama called it, was finally over--except it wasn't. It turns out those American troops had kept a lid on a lot of chaos. When they left, the bad guys came back with a vengeance. President Obama dismissed ISIS as the ``JV team'' of the terrorist world, but even he couldn't turn a blind eye when ISIS seized Fallujah just 2 years after our troops left Iraq, then Mosul a few months later, and then threatened to bring all of Iraq into their so-called caliphate.

So, ultimately, President Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and great ender of the Iraq war, had to start a new Iraq war not even 3 years after he had bugged out, although actually it was an Iraq-Syria war. Obama's retreat backfired so badly that he had to deploy our troops to two countries this time, not one. And guess which use-of- force resolution President Obama cited to fight ISIS. The same one that President Trump relied on in 2020 to kill Iran's terrorist mastermind, Qasem Soleimani, which is the same resolution Democrats want to repeal today. All of which goes to show that this debate is not about Saddam Hussein; it is about whether the President--whether any President should have maximum authority to pursue America's enemies in Iraq and Syria.

The Democrats have argued that the 2002 resolution wasn't necessary to stop ISIS because the 2001 War on Terror use-of-force resolution also applied. That is true. But apparently President Obama didn't think the 2001 resolution was sufficient since he also invoked the 2002 resolution. I would welcome any Democrat to explain why the leader of their party was wrong.

Somewhat to my amusement, some Democrats and a few Republicans have contended, not to worry, the President can always rely on his Commander in Chief authority under article II of the Constitution to order military operations like the Soleimani strike. I agree. Yet these are the very same Senators who usually argue that article II authorizes only the most immediate and modest actions in self-defense. Everything else, they say, takes congressional approval. I will be curious to hear from them the next time a President relies primarily on his article II authority to take necessary action to defend America.

But enough with debating how many JAG lawyers can dance on the head of a pin. Let's ask a more important question. In the real world, will repealing these resolutions make America more safe or less safe? To which I answer, just look around the region.

Iran's proxies are trying to kill Americans every day, and that is hardly an exaggeration. Just last week, a suicide drone made by Iran killed an American contractor and wounded six other Americans in Syria. An Iranian rocket attack wounded another American after that. Meanwhile, ISIS still carries out dozens of massacres and suicide bombings every year. That is not to mention new terrorist groups who may be waiting in the wings, ready for their shot at the title as America retreats.

If we repeal these resolutions, will it make America more safe or less safe?

The answer to that question is obvious. Threats still originate in and emanate from Iraq, whether terrorist groups like ISIS or Iran's proxies. We should not lightly throw away additional authorities to target them.

Furthermore, we shouldn't give Joe Biden any more reason to avoid taking necessary action to protect America. President Biden is already in full flight from the Middle East. It was President Biden who ended the war in Afghanistan, just like President Obama ended the Iraq war. Now the Taliban rules in Kabul, harboring terrorists who threaten our country.

Iran killed an American last week because Joe Biden never acts until Iran kills an American. Since he became President, Iran has attacked American positions at least 83 times. Yet President Biden has only retaliated four times. Little wonder the ayatollahs think they can get away with it, as they have with that latest strike, because after we finally hit back last week, Iran struck our positions again, injuring yet another American. Yet Joe Biden, as of this moment, has not retaliated.

A couple months ago the administration also cited an obscure legalistic grounds for why President Biden didn't shoot down a Chinese spy balloon over the Aleutian Islands. The last thing this President needs is more encouragement from Congress to turn the other cheek.

Besides the message to the President, we should also consider the signal we send to our friends and enemies in the Middle East. President Biden has made matters worse through his shabby treatment of America's best friends. He has attacked the Netanyahu government over its domestic policies and funded its political opponents. He has attacked Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman and promised to turn the Kingdom into a ``pariah'' state.

If we send the message that we are abandoning our friends, we shouldn't be surprised if they begin to hedge their bets. Already, our allies are doing just that, turning to China as a new power broker. Just this month, Beijing brokered a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It has encouraged the Saudis to trade oil in Chinese currency instead of dollars. China has also undertaken to build a secret port in the United Arab Emirates.

The trend is unmistakable. China looks like a rising power in the region, while America appears to be on the decline and on the way out. We can reinforce that impression today or not. Democrats can say that is not the message they intend, but what matters more is what our friends and foes hear. We will vote on it soon.

And it is not just China that is exploiting our weaknesses. Iran sees our retreat as a green light to dominate Iraq. Already it is manipulating in Iraq's politics and arming Shia militias. Iran just signed a border deal with Iraq to send more arms and cash to its proxies. Tehran's influence will only grow if ours recedes. We will vote on that soon too.

In short, repealing these resolutions will embolden terrorists, embolden Iran, and embolden China, while demoralizing our allies and making it harder to punish attacks on Americans. Do Senators really want to sign up for these consequences?

When another ISIS rears its head or Iran's proxies use Iraq's territory for safe haven, do Senators really want to be responsible for stripping our troops of these additional legal authorities?

I don't, and I won't. But if they do, let them say so plainly. Let them say that this academic exercise, which even they admit won't legally constrain any President, is worth these deadly real-world consequences.

Our men and women deserve that honest debate. After all, it is their lives depending on it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source