Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

There is not a member of this body who does not share the view that the terrorist organization known as the ``Islamic State in the Levant'' (ISIL) is a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria. ISIL's acts of barbarism are well known. The question before us is whether arming an amorphous and largely unknown Syrian opposition is the proper response to ISIL's rise.

The idea of arming the Syrian opposition has been discussed and even debated in this body over the last several years. And until now, Congress has rejected military involvement with Syrian opposition groups because we did not truly understand the size, composition, and intentions of the various opposition groups, and were concerned that the unforeseen consequences of our involvement could easily ruin any advantages there might be. The fact that ISIL emerged unexpectedly out of the Syrian fighting and surprised us with their military success in Iraq illustrates well America's lack of understanding of the situation. Furthermore, just this week, the head of the Free Syrian Army was quoted as saying if his group received U.S. aid, he would use it against the Assad regime, not against ISIL. As I have pondered this question and discussed it with experts and with citizens in New Jersey, I have come away with more and more questions about the wisdom of the proposed action we are debating today.

The President's proposed strategy seems very similar to the one we have pursued in previous conflicts: arm and train local forces in the region and plan to turn over responsibility for the fight to those governments. That strategy failed spectacularly in Iraq. Earlier this year, U.S. trained-and-equipped Iraqi security forces melted away in the face of ISIL forces. We have been told the reason was because of the Iraqi government under former Prime Minister al Maliki. With a new Iraqi government in Baghdad results would be better. That is hardly a believable or a reassuring argument.

The American public was told the same thing years ago after the South Vietnamese generals ousted Premier Diem in late 1963. If only we had the right leadership in Saigon, they argued, we could win the war. In the wake of that U.S.-sponsored coup, the political chaos in South Vietnam only deepened, and the Viet Cong and their North Vietnamese allies benefited from and exploited the situation to their political and military advantage, and less than a year after Diem's ouster President Johnson began committing large numbers of American ground troops to Vietnam in a vain effort to roll back the rising tide of support for the Viet Cong. Of course, the situation today in Syria and Iraq is not exactly like Vietnam under Diem or Iraq under Saddam, but we are slow to learn lessons.

Proponents of this resolution argue that a newly trained and equipped Iraqi security force may be in the field in a few months. If history is any guide, it is unlikely that schedule will be met, and in any case, Administration officials have made it clear they believe the Iraqi security forces will require significant external help for years in order to retake ISIS-controlled territory in Iraq.

In Syria, the Administration now proposes to arm an amorphous collection of Syrian opposition groups in the hopes that they can become a viable combat force. Arming Syrian rebels brings to mind our experience with the Afghan mujahedeen a generation ago. Can we have any confidence that our weapons will not be used against us eventually? The amendment before us explicitly acknowledges--through its reporting requirements--that American advisors may be killed by supposedly friendly Syrian opposition fighters, just as American advisors have been killed by Iraqi and Afghan turncoats in those nations. This amendment also recognizes--again through its reporting requirements--that American military aid may be diverted to Islamic militants through Syrian opposition traitors. If we can already see that this proposed action will lead to dead American advisors and pilfered American military aid, why are we continuing down this road?

It was telling that during his trip to the region earlier this month, Secretary of State Kerry came up empty when he sought concrete military commitments from other countries--even countries directly threatened by ISIL and its ideology. In the 1991 Persian Gulf war to oust Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait, each of those nations contributed significant military forces or allowed the use of their bases for Coalition forces. If the governments most threatened by the march of ISIL refuse to commit combat forces against it while American pilots are risking their lives daily in airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq, why should we put more American lives at risk on the ground in Iraq and Syria? I must vote no.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source