I have a lot of Senate diaries these past two days. I wanted to put this one out yesterday but just didn't have the time. Tomorrow will be a catch up day on the stories I didn't get to cover but now onto this one. Last week I wrote about Senator Tom Udall's (D. NM) objection to arming Syrian rebels:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
In an extremely disappointing vote, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Tuesday voted 15-3 to authorize the president to—among other things—arm and train the rebels in Syria who are fighting the government forces of President Bashar al-Assad.
This bill is terrible, and should be rejected by the Senate.
Yet, even amid this committee vote, there were a few bright spots in the form of Sens. Chris Murphy, Tom Udall, and Rand Paul, who were the three who voted no. Their vote wasn’t just correct, but their assessment of the situation should be heeded by the Obama administration and the full Senate as both consider what should be done, if anything, in Syria.
Once we introduce weapons, we have zero control over them. Udall, a New Mexico Democrat, was correct when he said the United States “could turn over the weapons we’re talking about and next day they end up in the hands of al-Qaida.”
Yes, the legislation mandates that any groups who receive weapons are thoroughly investigated and vetted. But as long as groups are fighting together, they will exchange arms. And as long as groups need funding, they’ll be open to sell arms. Where those arms end up, no one really knows.
But as Udall noted, some of these groups are reportedly affiliated with al-Qaida. “It’s impossible to know who our friends are,” said Paul, adding that any of the rebels could turn their arms over to terrorist-affiliated groups. - Jon Soltz MSNBC, 5/22/13
Yesterday, Senator Udall published an article for the Huffington Post making the case for diplomacy over arming Syrian rebels:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
The Assad regime is cruel and corrupt. But many of the groups engaged in the conflict against him do not share our values. Instead, they pose long-term risk to us, and allies like Israel and Turkey. Assad's enemies may very well be America's enemies. The fact is, we do not know. By flooding the region with heavy weapons, we risk inadvertently arming those who ultimately seek to do our nation harm.
Recent history tells a cautionary tale. In the 1980s, the United States supported a rebel insurgency to repel the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The United States supplied weapons, intelligence and training to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. Our short-term victory had tragic consequences for the future. Radical members of the insurgency formed the Taliban regime, which gave safe haven to terrorist training camps and provided material support to Osama bin Laden and his fledgling Al Qaeda movement. Through state-sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda thrived and perpetrated attacks on the USS Cole and the World Trade Center on 9/11. The aftermath has been more than a decade of war with loss of precious life and treasure. This is history to learn from, not repeat.
Today, the Syrian regime, supported by Russia and Iran, is being challenged by multiple insurgent groups. More questions than answers exist about the makeup of these groups, but what we do know is not re-assuring. They range from former Syrian military to individuals who have simply picked up a rifle to join the fight, to foreigners waging jihad. Their motivations are also conflicting. Some may want a free society, but others are intent on establishing an intolerant theocracy and are allied or sympathetic with Al Qaeda. Not surprisingly, there is significant infighting and no clear leadership.
The Foreign Relations resolution puts us on a dangerous path of supplying chaotic and veiled factions of rebels with heavy arms, including anti-tank missiles, howitzers, mortars, and even anti-aircraft systems. Once this weaponry is released into Syria, the consequences are unpredictable and the risk is great. We chance injecting the region with even more powerful and dangerous weapons than those in use today, consequently worsening the security situation. The biggest danger is that our own weapons could end up in the hands of America's enemies.
The need for answers is clear: Who are we arming? What are the repercussions of providing such weapons? Is the United States setting itself up for yet another bloody, costly overseas conflict? - Senator Tom Udall (D. NM), Huffington Post, 5/30/13
Arming the Syrian rebels isn't a black or white issue. It's a very tricky and dangerous one:
http://www.iol.co.za/...
The former US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, warned this week that the United States “doesn't know enough about Syria's fractured opposition to intervene or arm.”
For months the Americans have been working with so-called moderate Syrian rebels, led by the Supreme Military Council and the loosely organized Free Syrian Army commanded by General Salem Idris.
But even if Washington were to supply arms directly to Idris, there's no telling where they would end up after being carried into the fog of battle by the fractured and ever-shifting rebel groups that compose his forces.
Nerguizian draws parallels with the 1975-1990 Lebanese civil war and the more recent wars in Libya and Iraq, where jihadists manned checkpoints and demanded a share of weapons or ammunition for passage.
Salman Shaikh, Director of the Brookings Doha Center, points to Afghanistan, where the United States armed Islamists battling the Soviet Union in the 1980s only to launch its own war against them after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Although Syria's jihadists share the US goal of toppling Assad, Washington can hardly view them as allies given their broader and more radical ambitions, and has blacklisted the Al-Nusra Front as a terrorist group.
“These are Islamist elements that are militants who are going to destabilize the region,” Shaikh said.
Beyond the threat posed by Islamist groups, Washington also fears that arming the rebels would spur Russia and Iran to step up support for the Assad regime, drawing out the conflict and leading to even more casualties.
“By providing those kinds of lethal weapons they would be directly involved in a proxy war... in particular with the Russians,” who, like the Iranians, are a key source of support for Damascus, Shaikh said. - IOL News, 5/31/13
Today I received an e-mail from Senator Chris Murphy (D. CT) who also sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and also voted against arming the rebels had this to say:
Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 15-3 in favor of giving President Obama the power to arm the Syrian rebels fighting against President Bashar al-Assad in their nation's civil war. I was one of the three votes in opposition, joined by Senators Tom Udall and Rand Paul.
It was not an easy vote for me. I visited with Syrian refugees during my trip to the Middle East earlier this month. I met families who lost fathers, and daughters burned by government bombs.
I believe that Syria represents a grave human rights crisis, and I wholeheartedly support increasing humanitarian aid to the war-torn nation. But as of today, I draw a different conclusion when it comes to U.S. military intervention.
The fact is, we have failed over and over again in our attempts to pull the strings of Middle Eastern politics. At some point, we need to learn the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. Right now, I do not believe it is our national interest to send weapons into a conflict that could simply lead to more, rather than less, people being killed.
If you've been following the news out of Syria, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the issue. You can share them here:
http://www.chrismurphy.com/...
This is a complicated situation that is changing by the day, and I value your feedback.
If you're interested, I'll be hosting another Google Hangout with constituents Monday at 6:00pm Eastern where we can talk about Syria more. Just check our Facebook page at http://facebook.com/... for more information as we get closer.
I look forward to continuing this conversation with you.
Best,
Chris
Please do submit your thoughts to Senator Murphy. It's important that they hear your thoughts. I thank Senators Udall and Murphy for standing firm on their principals on this issue. Senator Udall is up fore re-election next year. If you'd like to donate to his campaign, please do so here:
https://secure.actblue.com/...