WASHINGTON, D.C.-U.S. Senator Susan Collins, a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, today delivered a speech on the Senate floor in which she voiced her opposition to a resolution approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that would authorize military force in Syria.
"The decision on whether or not to authorize the President of the United States to use the military might of our great country against another nation is the most significant vote that a Senator can cast. The Constitution vests this responsibility in Congress, a duty that rests heavily on the shoulders of each and every Member.
"We are engaged in a serious debate about what the appropriate response should be to the horrific use of chemical weapons by the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad to kill his own people on August 21st. This was not the first use of chemical weapons by Assad. He launched several smaller-scale attacks murdering his citizens, and notably, many, if not all of these, occurred after the President drew his "red line" a year ago.
"It was not until the large-scale August 21st attack of this year, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,400 people, that President Obama decided that a military strike against Syria was warranted. The fact is, Assad violated the international convention prohibiting the use of chemical weapons and crossed President Obama's red line many times during the past year.
"Deciding whether or not to grant the President this authority is a difficult decision. I have participated in numerous discussions with the President, Vice President, and experts in and out of government; I have attended many classified meetings as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and I have carefully weighed the assessments of the Intelligence Community and military and State Department officials. My constituents have also provided me with their valuable insights.
"After much deliberation, I have decided that I cannot support the resolution approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"One of the criteria for the use of military force is surely whether or not the adversary poses an imminent threat to the American people. More than once, President Obama has stated that Syria's chemical weapons and delivery systems do not pose a direct, imminent threat to the United States.
"Neither the United States nor any of our allies have been attacked with chemical weapons. Instead, the President justifies the attack as a response to a violation of international norms, despite the fact that we currently lack international partners to enforce the convention on chemical weapons through military means.
"Although the term "limited air strikes" sounds less threatening, even limited air strikes constitute an act of war. If bombs were dropped from the air or cruise missiles were launched into a city in the United States, we would certainly consider that to be an act of war.
"American military strikes against the Assad regime risk entangling the United States into the middle of a protracted, dangerous, ugly civil war. General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned us that the use of U.S. military force "cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious, and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict."
"The introduction of American armed forces into this violent conflict could escalate to the point where we are perceived to be -- or actually are involved - in a civil war or a proxy war with Hezbollah or Iran. In this complex conflict, it is also becoming increasingly difficult to sort out the good guys from the bad.
"Assad is a brutal, ruthless dictator who is supported by thousands of Hezbollah terrorist fighters. The opposition, however, is not pure. It has been infiltrated by not one but two affiliates of al Qaeda as well as criminal gangs. Caught in the middle are millions of Syrians who simply want to lead peaceful lives. The tragic result has been more than 100,000 people killed, four million displaced internally, and two million refugees.
"We do not know how Assad or his allies would respond to a U.S. military attack, but an asymmetric attack by Hezbollah aimed at one of our embassies or other American interests abroad is one potential response. My concern is that reprisals, followed by subsequent retaliations, followed by even further reprisals, could lead to an escalation of violence that was never intended by the President but may well be the result of the first strike.
"I have raised this issue directly with Administration since the "one and done" strike, as retired General Michael Hayden puts it, may well not work. I asked what the Administration would do if Assad waits until the 91st day, when the authorization expires, and then conducts an attack using chemical weapons that kills a small number of people. What would we do then? I was told that we would likely launch another military attack.
"In addition to my concerns about being dragged into the Syrian civil war, I question whether the proposed military response would be more effective in achieving the goal of eliminating Assad's stockpile of chemical weapons than a diplomatic approach.
"Let us be clear: the strikes proposed by the President would not eliminate Assad's chemical weapons or the means to deliver them. In the President's own words, the purpose is "to degrade Assad's capabilities to deliver chemical weapons."
"Indeed, you will not find any military or intelligence official who believes that the strike contemplated by the Administration will eliminate Syria's chemical weapons stockpile or all of the delivery systems. General Dempsey wrote to Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin that even if an explicit military mission to secure Syria's chemical weapons were undertaken, it would result in the control of "some, but not all" chemical weapons in Syria, and that is not what is being discussed.
"According to the President, the purpose of this more narrow objective is to deliver a calculated message to convince Assad not to use his remaining chemical weapons and delivery systems ever again. But would such a strike be effective in preventing Assad from using these weapons again on a small scale after he has absorbed this strike, just to deliver his own message that he retains the capability to do so? He would retain plenty of chemical weapons, and he knows that we did not respond to the smaller chemical weapons attacks he undertook before the August 21, 2013 event.
"So on the one hand, the President is seeking to conduct a precision military strike that is sufficient to deter Assad from using any chemical weapons again. On the other hand, he wants to narrow the scope of a military strike so that Assad does not perceive this act of war as a threat to his regime. Yet, the President has previously stated that U.S. policy is the removal of Assad.
"While Administration officials have gone out of their way to state that the military strikes are only to deter and degrade Assad's chemical weapons use and are not intended to pick sides in the civil war, the text of the resolution before us is at odds with the Administration's representations.
"The text states that it is the policy of the United States to "change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria." No one could ever consider the Assad dictatorship to be a "democratic government."
"Furthermore, on September 3, Secretary of State John Kerry testified that "it is not insignificant that to deprive him (Assad) of the capacity to use chemical weapons or to degrade the capacity to use those chemical weapons actually deprives him of a lethal weapon in this ongoing civil war, and that has an impact."
"All of us want to see a peaceful Syria no longer led by Assad nor controlled by the radical Islamist extremists that are part of his opposition. But is military action that could well get us involved in Syria's civil war the right answer?
"When I think about the proper response to Assad's use of chemical weapons, I am mindful of the suffering and death that have occurred as well as the international conventions banning chemical weapons. Since this is an international norm, where are our international partners? The United Nations? NATO? The Arab League?
"I have reservations about undertaking an act of war to enforce an international norm without the international support we have previously had when undertaking similar action in the past such as in Kosovo, Afghanistan, or even Iraq. While NATO's Secretary General has expressed support for consequences, NATO's North Atlantic Council, which is the body that approves military action for NATO, has not approved military action. The Arab League has condemned the use of chemical weapons, but there has yet to be any Arab League statement that explicitly endorses military action. Even our ally who is most supportive, France, has asked for a delay to allow the U.N. inspectors to deliver their report next week.
"A military strike may well enforce the international norm with respect to chemical weapons, but at the same time it would weaken the international norm of limiting military action to instances of self-defense or those instances where we have the support of the international community, or at least our allies in NATO or the Arab League.
"In addressing this difficult and tragic situation in Syria, the Administration initially presented only two choices: military action or no action. I reject the notion that the United States has only the two choices of undertaking an act of war or doing nothing in our response to President Assad's attack on his citizens.
"There are a variety of non-military responses to consider that may be more effective. The most promising of these options, proposed by the Russians - one of Assad's strongest allies -- would place Syria's chemical weapons stockpile in the custody of the international community before they would ultimately be destroyed.
"I am not naïve about "trusting" the Russians. My point is that this option may well be in Russia's own interests, would be more effective in securing the stockpile of chemical weapons in Syria, and would involve the international community. This diplomatic alternative would put Syria's chemical weapons under verified international control and would once and for all prevent Assad or anyone else in Syria from using those weapons. A risk of attacking Assad's facilities is that the chemical weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist elements in the opposition. That risk would be eliminated if the weapons were removed completely from Syria.
"One of the arguments advanced by proponents of the AUMF resolution is that America's credibility is on the line. This is a legitimate concern. To be sure, it was unfortunate that the President drew a line in the sand on this issue without first having a well-vetted plan, consulting with Congress, and obtaining the necessary support for doing so. I would maintain, however, that the credibility of the United States is greater than this one statement by the President, even in his important capacity as Commander-in-Chief.
"The credibility of the United States is backed by a military that is the most advanced and capable in the world. The strength of our military sends the clear message that the United States is capable of exerting overwhelming force whenever we decide it is necessary to do so.
"It would be a mistake for our adversaries to interpret a single vote regarding a military response to Syria's chemical weapon program as having any ramifications for our willingness to use force when our country or our allies face direct threats, especially with regard to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities.
"At the very least, we have an obligation to pursue all non-military options that may well be more effective in preventing the future use of Assad's chemical weapons than the military option the President has proposed to undertake.
"For these reasons, should the authorization for the use of military force approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee come to the floor, I shall cast my vote in opposition.
"My hope, however, is that the negotiations underway with the Russians will pave the way for the removal of chemical stockpiles from Syria and their verified ultimate destruction."