September 18, 2014
Madam President, I rise today to speak about ISIS--the threat, what we can do about it, and what we must do about it.
Why are we having this debate? Why are we conducting airstrikes? This is a clear and present danger to the United States of America. This group has done everything but send us an email saying we are coming for you. They have made comments: We will see you in New York. They brutally murdered two of our citizens.
If they have free rein in the area that is as big as the State of Indiana, I suppose, between eastern Syria and western and northern Iraq, there, undoubtedly, will come a time when they will strike here and in Europe and in other parts of the world.
I am here today to support the provision of the continuing resolution that will allow us to begin the arming, equipping, and training of the Syrian moderate opposition.
Why do we even have this discussion? Because the most fundamental responsibility of any government anywhere, any time is to protect our citizens. The preamble of the U.S. Constitution says that one of the fundamental purposes listed in the preamble is to "provide for the common defense'' and "insure domestic tranquility''--a basic function of any government. This is why we are having this debate today.
This arming and equipping provision is not a panacea. It is not going to end the war. It is not going to be easy. It is no sure thing.
A friend said to me this morning: It is the least worst option. It is one that we must undertake. It has to be part of the solution because to root out ISIS, whose headquarters are in Syria --not Iraq--there are going to have to be troops. There are going to have be combat troops. There is no such thing as a surgical war.
Where are those troops going to come from? Not from the United States--they have to come from within the Syrian opposition itself.
This is also important as a gesture to the coalition we are building to confront this threat. Having a credible coalition--which I will expand upon in a moment--is an incredibly important part of this entire strategy. Without a functioning real coalition, it is impossible, it is an impossible task. This cannot be a U.S. war. This cannot be a war of the West against this so-called Islamic State. It has to involve particularly the neighbors in the region.
I am also supportive of the general strategy the President outlined, but I think there are several points that need to be absolutely emphasized. One is the importance of the coalition. We cannot have a coalition that just holds our coat while we do the fighting. They have to be engaged in an active way--not just writing checks.
If we try to do this ourselves, not even if we were inclined to do this with our own troops, it wouldn't work. These have to be local faces on the ground. There are going to be boots on the ground, but they are not and should not and cannot be ours.
The second thing that is so important in this strategy the President outlined the other night is a trustworthy, inclusive government in Baghdad. The reason ISIS was so successful in this sweep through northern Iraq and into Mosul was that they were swimming in friendly waters. They were swimming in the Sunni regions of Iraq where the local tribes and Sunni leaders have been alienated and systematically excluded from the government in Baghdad.
If the government in Baghdad cannot build credibility with that group, this is a hopeless enterprise. Prime Minister al-Abadi needs to channel his inner Mandela. He has to be inclusive of even the people who were his enemies and the enemies of his sect at a prior time.
This has to be a government that can be trusted. Really what is going on is a battle for the loyalty of the Sunni population of Iraq to see whether they are going to be loyal to this brutal so-called Islamic State or to the government of the country in Baghdad. That is the challenge that is before that government today.
So far the signs are positive, but we are still in the very first weeks of this regime. But that has to be a crucial element of our strategy. So these are two pieces that are largely out of our control.
We can try to build a coalition. We can put pressure on the government in Baghdad, but these folks have to do it themselves. We cannot be the policemen of the Middle East.
The third piece is building the Syrian opposition. The same goes for Al-Raqqa, the headquarters of ISIS in Syria. There are going to have to be people on the ground, and they are not going to be Americans. They have to come from the Syrian opposition, and that is why that is an important element of the strategy.
I think there is another discussion we have to have. Unfortunately, the calendar doesn't allow us to have it today. I believe there must be a new authorization for the use of military force. The authorization that was passed right after September 11, 2001, has been stretched and strained to the point where if it is allowed to become the justification for anything, there is nothing left of the clause of the Constitution that says Congress shall be the one to declare war.
I have gone back and looked at the history of that clause. Very interestingly, the original draft of the Constitution said Congress shall make war. At the time, the Framers realized that Congress would not be the right entity to execute the war itself, to make the battlefield decisions. The Framers were adamant that the momentous decision of entering this country into war had to be in the branch of the government most representative of the people.
They went through history--in the 49th Federalist they talk about how throughout history unfettered executives, princes, kings mischievously and often on weak grounds got their countries engaged in war. They made a conscious decision that this responsibility was left with the Congress. Unfortunately, over the years, going back to the late 1940s, we allowed that clause to atrophy. We allowed the Executive to take more and more responsibility and power and unilateral authority. People are saying: Well, this President is acting unilaterally. This is nothing new. This goes back to Harry Truman and the Korean war. This isn't something that Barack Obama invented.
Presidents naturally want more authority. They do have the power to defend our country when the threat is imminent and real, but they don't have the power to commit American armed forces in any place, at any time, under any circumstances.
I believe we have a constitutional responsibility to consider this matter, to debate it, to argue about the terms of what the authorization should be--how it should be limited in duration, geography, target, in means of confrontation with the enemy. That is what we must do.
Finally, beyond this AUMF, beyond ISIS, assume for a moment we are tremendously and utterly successful over the next 6 months, a year, 2 years, and ISIS is gone, the problem is history has taught us someone will take their place.
The real issue is radical jihadism. We have to have a strategy to deal with that in the long term that doesn't involve trying to just kill them as they come forward. It was characterized recently as geopolitical Whac-A-Mole. We stop them in one place, and it comes up somewhere else, and we all know about al-Shabaab, al-Nusra, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and Boko Haram.
We have to be talking about and developing a strategy to deal with this threat to our country and to the rest of the world on a more long-term basis than simply having continuous--what amounts to--battles against elements of these people.
Why are they doing this? What is attracting young people to this destructive philosophy, and how can we best counteract that? I believe we have to make a decision today.
As I said, I also think we have to make a decision before the end of the year as to what the scope, limits, and authority of the President are in this matter. We can try to avoid it, but I don't believe we can.
On December 1, 1862, Abraham Lincoln sent a message to this body, and the conclusion of that message was that we cannot escape history. It will light us down from one generation to the next. I believe that we need to stand and debate, argue, refine, and finally reach a conclusion so that the American people can understand what we are doing and why.
The Executive will have clear authority. The rest of the world will know that this is the United States of America taking this position--not a President and not a few Members of Congress. That is a responsibility I believe we are ready to assume. This is a threat. It must be met, and we must participate in the decision to meet it.
