Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think one of the things that makes this difficult is there are so many issues swirling around here: the desire; the need that I think, as Mr. Thornberry said, that everyone agrees on to confront and contain ISIS.

Their savagery is just unimaginable. They are clearly a threat to us and to the region, and we need a plan for confronting them, for stopping them and, hopefully, ultimately defeating them.

Now, part of that plan is what we are doing in Iraq. Part of that plan is trying to figure out how to deal with them in Syria.

But aside from all of that, this amendment is far more basic and simple, and I think Mr. Thornberry explained it. It is a train-and-equip mission. This is something that the Department of Defense does all over the world in a variety of different places. We have had a great deal of success training armies in Ethiopia and Kenya and Uganda to help deal with the situation in Somalia. We have had considerable success training forces in Yemen to help confront AQAP. The goal of this is to reduce the requirement for a robust U.S. military presence to advance our interests.

I have heard a number of folks, particularly on my side of the aisle, express that concern, that we don't want to go down the slippery slope of committing U.S. forces to a large-scale war, and I completely agree with them. But this amendment does not authorize military force. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It authorizes us to train local forces so that they can do the fighting.

I have also heard a number of people express the frustration which I share: we shouldn't be over there fighting these battles; we need the local populations there to stand up and fight for themselves. But that is precisely what Mr. McKeon's amendment enables us to do. It enables the military to train local forces to fight ISIL on our behalf. And this is important, not just because it keeps us out of the fight, but because it gives us a far greater chance of being successful.

If this is perceived as the U.S. coming in against the Muslim group, then that gives ISIS a powerful propaganda message to say that they are simply defending themselves against Western aggression. If, on the other hand, they continue to do what they have been doing, which is killing Muslims and fighting Muslims, then we can recruit and get greater support from the local Sunni population to stand up against them.

This is what was successful about the Anbar Awakening back during the Iraq war, when Sunni tribesmen rose up against al Qaeda, with our support, and were able to turn the tide in Iraq at that time. That is why this is so important.

Now, the big issue of concern is what is going to happen within Syria. Are there truly moderates?

There are, unquestionably, moderates in Syria. Now they have been under a lot of pressure for the last couple of years from the Assad regime, but also from al Qaeda-affiliated groups like al-Nusra and also from ISIL. So they are clearly there. We know this because they are already, in some instances, fighting against ISIL. They are just not properly trained. They are not properly equipped, and they haven't been doing particularly well for the last couple of years. So if we can train them, they have a chance to survive.

And that is the last point that I will make. I think people can legitimately say: Is this really going to turn the tide of the war? Is this really going to defeat ISIL and give us success? This alone, absolutely not. But what it does is it gives us a chance, because if ISIL is allowed free rein in Syria, if they are not confronted by anybody but Assad, then we have no chance of defeating them.

We can do our best in Iraq, but if they can just go right across the border into Syria, as we have experienced trying to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan as they go across the border into Pakistan, if they have a safe haven where they can go without being pressured, then it is going to be very, very difficult to ever defeat them. The only way we can take away that safe haven is to find a local force that will fight our fight, and we can't get there if we don't train them.

This is about enabling the moderates in Syria enough space to survive. They survive, we slowly build from there to get us the force that we need to defeat them in Syria and, ultimately, beat back ISIL in both Syria and Iraq.

This is not a perfect plan. This is not going to solve all problems. Believe me, it wouldn't take too long to find difficulties and challenges in any plan that was put out there, but I think this is a good and prudent step that gives us the best chance of advancing U.S. national security interests in a reasonable way.

I urge this body to support this amendment. I thank Mr. McKeon for bringing it.

I also want to join Mr. Thornberry. This has been an excellent debate. It is great to have so many Members come down and so articulately explain their positions. I urge support for the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source