Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Page S972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on another matter, this week, we
expect the Senate will take up a War Powers Resolution by the junior
Senator from Virginia that would severely limit the U.S. military's
operational flexibility to defend itself against threats posed by Iran.
I will strongly oppose our colleague's effort and urge the Senate to
defeat it.
First, let's discuss what prompted this: the President's successful
decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield last month. This
limited yet decisive precision strike eliminated the terrorist
mastermind who had been responsible for more American military
casualties than anyone else alive.
This was not some reckless act. It was a calculated and limited
response to a significant, growing threat of attack against U.S.
personnel in Iraq by an emboldened adversary. Years ago, Soleimani had
concluded America was a paper tiger whose people he could kill with
relative impunity. It was a strike designed to stop an escalation cycle
we all knew was underway and to restore deterrence and reduce the risk
of war.
Yet, when Soleimani's record of brutality was brought to an end, some
Washington Democrats immediately suggested President Trump was leading
us into World War III. While the Middle East masses rejoiced at the
death of a principal architect of Iran's campaign of terror, the
Washington elites fretted.
Yet, thus far, it appears the Soleimani strike has, indeed, had the
intended effect. As I observed back in January, ``We appear to have
restored a measure of deterrence in the Middle East. So let's not screw
it up.'' Well, I am afraid that is just what our colleague's resolution
would do. Just as we have successfully sent Iran the strong signal of
our strength and resolve, a blunt and clumsy War Powers Resolution
would tie our own hands.
With China's and Russia's watching, is it really a good idea to
suggest that we are willing to let a meddling power like Iran push us
around? This self-flagellation and self-limitation would be tantamount
to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
For 8 years, President Obama and Senate Democrats, like my friend the
Democratic leader himself, frequently said that, when it comes to Iran,
we should never take the military option off the table. Yet, now that
someone else is in the Oval Office, they seem to want to remove all
options from the table. Lest we forget, the fact is that we are not
conducting ongoing hostilities with Iran. This was a one-off operation
to disrupt and deter planned attacks--not a campaign, not a conflict,
not a war.
This discrete and limited exercise of American power pales in
comparison to the ways in which past Presidents of both parties have
routinely used Presidential authorities to utilize our military might
without their having the prior consent of Congress--President Clinton
in Kosovo, President Obama in Libya, and so on.
Do most of my distinguished Democratic colleagues really agree with
several of their party's leading Presidential candidates who have
suggested President Trump made a mistake by taking this sort of
Executive action to eliminate this brutal terrorist?
Do my colleagues really agree with the prominent voices on their side
who have proposed to exit the Middle East altogether rather than to
continue to work to support our local partners and defend our national
security and national interests in this critical region?
I have been trying to have this broader debate for more than a year
now. I have repeatedly sought to give my Democratic colleagues the
opportunity to go on record about their actual, big-picture strategic
vision for the Middle East.
Are they willing to support a continued military presence in Syria?
in Iraq? Do they believe we can magically support our partners, like
the Kurds, without having a military presence; that we can counter
Iranian and Russian influence if we are nowhere to be found in the
region? Do they believe Israel will be safer in a region without
American influence?
Ill-conceived potshots at Presidential authorities--in the wake of a
strike that succeeded--by using the blunt instrument of a War Powers
Resolution is no substitute at all for answering these broader
questions.
I will oppose my colleague's resolution tomorrow, and I encourage our
colleagues to do likewise.
____________________