Congressman Blumenauer's Statement on Syria Vote

In Iraq and Syria, we're facing an excruciating set of circumstances where there is no clear path forward. Our challenge in the face of the atrocities perpetrated by ISIS is to reduce suffering to innocent civilians and our allies, and to protect our security at home.

To do nothing is an option, but likely the worst choice. If ISIS were only a potential threat, I'd feel differently. However, ISIS is a well-funded, heavily-armed militia whose strength is increasing, and whose ranks have swollen to over 30,000 and counting by some estimates. They control an ever-expanding area across Iraq and Syria's border. To stand by, allowing ISIS to expand and strengthen its hold in Iraq and Syria, we will encourage an accelerated deterioration of the security in the region that will become more difficult to address and will become a threat to the United States.

Our strategy to deal with ISIS cannot be limited to merely training, arming and providing air support for certain Syrian rebels. We must engage our "allies" who are offering to fund our efforts, while at the same time continue to bankroll the madras's that foment the type of extremist ideologies underpinning terrorist groups like ISIS. We must also confront those in the region who say they oppose ISIS, but remain unwilling to take action. These regional players have an even greater stake in this struggle than the U.S.

The "least bad" option is the McKeon amendment, which does not provide for an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF). I didn't support either wars in Iraq or the later surge in Afghanistan, and I certainly would not support legislation that would expose us to another open-ended, broad commitment. This proposal strictly prohibits the use of US ground forces in the region, and would prevent an open-ended engagement in Iraq or Syria because the authority provided in the legislation sunsets on December 11 of this year. Any air strikes or aid would come at no additional cost to our country, which has already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on wars in the region. This requires that the Department of Defense reprogram existing funds or find regional allies to pay for our efforts.

This proposal to empower the president for three months is the most reasonable course of action at this point. It is not going to settle a long-simmering collection of conflicts in the region. Authorizing the president to train and equip highly vetted Syrian opposition fighters and strike a narrow set of ISIS targets may degrade ISIS in a meaningful way. These three months will give the administration an opportunity to show progress and enlist support of other countries. Congress will then reassess these efforts in December. In the meantime, we are not undercutting the diplomatic and military efforts of the administration.

Helping the administration respond, allowing the situation to clarify, making some progress, and galvanizing support are the most we can hope for over the course of the next three months. I remain open to alternatives, but after listening carefully to the debate, briefings from experts, and reviewing the materials, I see no better course at this point than the limited, short-term initiative this amendment provides.

Source