December 18, 2013: Reply from Senator Rand Paul
Subject:
|
Reply
from Senator Rand Paul
| |||
|
Date:
|
12/18/2013
5:18:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
| |||
|
From:
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sent
from the Internet (Details)
|
||||
December
18, 2013
Dear
Dr. Burlacu,
Thank
you for taking the time to contact me regarding United States intervention into
the Syrian civil war. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important
issue.
Pro-democracy
protests in Damascus began in early 2011 against the government of Bashar
al-Assad. His government responded with violent crackdowns. Over the next few
months the conflict spread throughout the country and degenerated into civil
war. While the conflict might have started with pro-democracy protesters, in
this civil war, there are no clear allies. On March 17, 2013, General Martin
Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated, "I am no longer sure that
the United States could identify the ‘right people' in
Syria."
The
government of Syria has a long history of sponsoring international terrorism and
was listed as a state sponsor of terror by the U.S. Department of State in 1979.
Under Bashar al-Assad, Syria has continued to provide overt aid and comfort to
violent extremist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and several factions of the
Palestine Liberation Organization. Unfortunately, the makeup of rebel forces has
become increasingly complicated. Many of the rebel groups have ties to
organizations that support terrorism across the globe including al-Qaeda, the
terrorist group that attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.
The
President has vacillated in determining what the U.S. policy toward Syria should
be. Speaking to reporters in 2012, President Obama announced that the use of
chemical weapons would be a “red line” for him, and would force U.S.
intervention. In April of this year, reports of chemical attacks surfaced. In
August, rebel forces accused Assad of another chemical attack near Damascus that
killed hundreds of people, including women and children. President Obama came to
Congress seeking authorization for the use of military force against the Syrian
government.
I
sympathize with the Syrian people fighting to get out from under Assad’s years
of brutal dictatorship, but the President has not made a compelling case for
U.S. intervention, and has even admitted there is no military solution to the
Syrian conflict. Unfortunately, there are no clear allies for the United States.
Becoming militarily involved in this civil, sectarian war, produces no good
outcomes for the U.S. and is likely to increase the potential for further
conflict in the region. If the President continues his policy of arming the
rebels, I fear we are necessarily allying ourselves with al-Qaeda. I do not
support this and have introduced legislation (S. 1201) that would require
Congressional approval before military assistance could be provided to groups in
Syria.
In
early September, during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on a
resolution to authorize the use of force in Syria (S.J.Res.21), I asked
Secretary of State John Kerry what the outcomes of a U.S. military strike are
likely to be. I asked what the likelihood of the chemical weapons being used
again, or falling into the wrong hands, might be. I asked what the goal of the
strike was and if it was likely to improve the conditions of Syrian Christians.
Sec. Kerry was unable to give a clear answer to any of these questions. It
reminds me of Winston Churchill's caution to those about to go to war, “once the
signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of
unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.” The Founders knew this, and our own
military veterans know it still. War is horribly unpredictable, it cannot be
entered into lightly. The U.S. should only go to war when there is no other
choice and for no other purpose but full and complete victory.
The
decision to go to war, no matter the magnitude or duration, is the heaviest of
burdens a statesman can carry. Such a thing must be carefully considered, the
debate robust, and ultimately the decision of the American people through their
elected representatives. Prudently, the Founders gave the power to declare war
to Congress, as James Madison wrote, “The constitution supposes, what the
History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of
power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with
studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.”
I
have vigorously opposed going to war with Syria because there is no clear
American interest or certainty that U.S. involvement, of the kind for which the
President sought approval, would improve the situation. Instead it is likely to
end in stalemate making a tragic situation worse.
The
Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10 to 7 with one abstention in favor of
authorizing military intervention in Syria. However, the resolution was not
brought to either the Senate or the House of Representatives for a final vote.
As
a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I will continue to closely
follow the situation in Syria. Thank you again for taking the time to contact
me. It is an honor and a privilege to represent the Commonwealth of Kentucky in
the United States Senate. Please do not hesitate to contact my office regarding
any other federal legislative issues.
Sincerely,
Rand Paul, MD
United States Senator
Comments