WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Elaine Luria (VA-02) is requesting clarification from the White House about how and why the President decided to withdraw U.S. forces from the Syria-Turkey border and effectively abandoned our Kurdish partners in the process.
As Turkish forces conducted an offensive military campaign into northeastern Syria, Congresswoman Luria joined more than 50 fellow lawmakers in demanding answers on what the administration’s plans are going forward.
The lawmakers sent a letter to the White House with 10 detailed questions. They note that the U.S. has both a national security and moral responsibility to maintain a presence in northern Syria and to support our Kurdish Syrian Democratic Force allies.
“The President’s decision, seemingly out of nowhere, betrays the trust of the United States and undermines the security of our faithful Kurdish allies,” Congresswoman Luria said. “In real time, the President is degrading America’s ability to respond to resurgent ISIS actions and future regional threats in the Middle East.”
President Trump’s decision contradicts years of U.S. foreign policy and will leave the Syrian Kurds, who have been essential U.S. allies in the fight against the ISIS Caliphate, incredibly vulnerable to hostile action by the Turkish military.
The full letter can be read below.
Dear President Trump:
We write with great concern over your decision to withdraw U.S. troops in northern Syria in advance of a Turkish operation into area controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
We believe your decision to withdraw U.S. personnel from the area will have far-reaching diplomatic and national security implications: it will dramatically alter our partnership with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), allow unilateral Turkish incursions into Syria, and jeopardize counter-ISIS efforts. Furthermore, it introduces uncertainty into U.S. foreign policy that will cause current and future allies to question the reliability of the U.S. as a partner.
On Monday October 7, in response to bipartisan criticism, you posted a statement on your Twitter account that read: “…[i]f Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey[…]” This chain of events, including the announcement and the subsequent clarification, has had a chaotic and destabilizing effect on an already fragile situation. It has thrown our troops, and our partners on the ground, into disarray.
We cannot invite further instability in this region. For one, the SDF maintains custody of over 11,000 ISIS fighters in detention facilities across northeast Syria. Moreover, the decision leaves U.S. assets and personnel in Syria — principally, at al-Tanf — embroiled in uncertainty.
In order to assess the decision making process that underpins your announcement, and the national security implications, we request answers to the following questions:
1. Where are the U.S. personnel in northern Syria being repositioned and how will that withdrawal affect the overall force level of U.S. personnel in Syria?
2. What additional troop withdrawals or other changes to the disposition of U.S. forces in Syria are planned within the next six months?
3. How will the U.S. ensure the protection of Kurdish civilians and our SDF allies?
4. Consistent with your tweet on October 7, what standards are you using to determine actions that are “off limits”? What authorities and means would you use to “destroy and obliterate” the economy of Turkey, a NATO ally?
5. How will the more than 11,000 ISIS prisoners held by the SDF be secured if the SDF are forced to reposition their resources for defensive purposes? If their care is to be transferred to another entity, how will the U.S. ensure an orderly transfer of custody?
6. How does the movement of U.S. personnel affect the operational security assessment of the al-Tanf garrison? How will the U.S. ensure the continued protection of the al-Tanf garrison?
7. On October 4, U.S. and Turkish forces conducted the first joint patrol of a buffer zone in northeast Syria. What information led to the decision to abandon this effort after only one patrol?
8. What assessments have been done to analyze the effect of this decision on the ongoing counter-ISIS mission?
9. What preparations has your administration made with our allies in the counter-ISIS mission in advance of this decision?
10. What assessments have been done to determine the effects of a U.S. withdrawal in northern Syria on Syrian government, Iranian, and Russian military forces operating in the region?
One of our country’s greatest strengths is the diversity of our allies and partners that are willing to fight alongside us in times of conflict. Our allies commit their lives and livelihoods to our common cause and place immense trust in our unwavering dedication as a reliable partner. This decision jeopardizes decades of trust in American solidarity and will only serve to undermine current and future alliances.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. We look forward to your prompt response.
About the Author
Transcript of final 2012 presidential debate
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS., PARTICIPATE IN A CANDIDATES DEBATE, LYNN UNIVERSITY, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA
OCTOBER 22, 2012
SPEAKERS:
FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS.,
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
BOB SCHIEFFER, MODERATOR
SCHIEFFER: Let me interject the second topic question in this segment about the Middle East and so on, and that is, you both mentioned — alluded to this, and that is Syria.
The war in Syria has now spilled over into Lebanon.
We have, what, more than 100 people that were killed there in a bomb.
There were demonstrations there, eight people dead.
Mr. President, it’s been more than a year since you saw — you told Assad he had to go.
Since then, 30,000 Syrians have died.
We’ve had 300,000 refugees.
The war goes on.
He’s still there.
Should we reassess our policy and see if we can find a better way to influence events there?
Or is that even possible?
And you go first, sir.
OBAMA: What we’ve done is organize the international community, saying Assad has to go.
We’ve mobilized sanctions against that government.
We have made sure that they are isolated.
We have provided humanitarian assistance and we are helping the opposition organize, and we’re particularly interested in making sure that we’re mobilizing the moderate forces inside of Syria.
But ultimately, Syrians are going to have to determine their own future.
And so everything we’re doing, we’re doing in consultation with our partners in the region, including Israel which obviously has a huge interest in seeing what happens in Syria; coordinating with Turkey and other countries in the region that have a great interest in this.
This — what we’re seeing taking place in Syria is heartbreaking, and that’s why we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition.
But we also have to recognize that, you know, for us to get more entangled militarily in Syria is a serious step, and we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping; that we’re not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or allies in the region.
And I am confident that Assad’s days are numbered.
But what we can’t do is to simply suggest that, as Governor Romney at times has suggested, that giving heavy weapons, for example, to the Syrian opposition is a simple proposition that would lead us to be safer over the long term.
Mark Hosenball of Reuters on 2 August 2012 wrote:
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
Precisely when Obama signed the secret intelligence authorization, an action not previously reported, could not be determined.
The full extent of clandestine support that agencies like the CIA might be providing also is unclear.
***************
Associated Press on 15 September 2012 wrote:
Most of the CIA’s clandestine and paramilitary team that had worked with Libyan rebels to bring about the fall of Gadhafi is now arrayed at the Syrian border, working with rebels there to try to hasten the fall of Syrian president Bashar Assad, the officials said.
****************
AL ARABIYA NEWS on 31 October 2015 wrote:
The decision by U.S. President Barack Obama to send special forces to Syria is strictly focused on fighting ISIS and does not signify the United States is entering Syria’s civil war, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said.
Asked about the prospect of the United States sending more troops, or getting drawn deeper into the conflict, Kerry said: “I can’t predict what the future will bring when our policy is to destroy Daesh, to fight back against this evil.”
*******************
Pelosi Statement Following President’s Remarks on Syria
August 31, 2013
Press Release
San Francisco – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released this statement following President Obama’s remarks on Syria this afternoon:
“President Obama is right that the debate and authorization by Congress for action will make our country and the response in Syria stronger.”
“President Assad was wrong to gas the Syrian people killing more than 1,400 people, including 400 children.”
“It is a pillar of America’s security that we must stop the use and proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.”
“As the President stated today, military action in response to Assad’s reckless use of deadly gas that is limited in scope and duration, without boots on the ground, is in our national security interest and in furtherance of regional stability and global security.”
“I look forward to the debate.”
San Diego Union Tribune
“Paper: Documents show US funding Syrian opposition”
Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:12 am ET
WASHINGTON The State Department has been secretly financing opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad, The Washington Post reported, citing previously undisclosed diplomatic documents provided to the newspaper by the WikiLeaks website.
One of the outfits funded by the U.S. is Barada TV, a London-based satellite channel that broadcasts anti-government news into Syria, the Post reported Sunday.
Barada’s chief editor, Malik al-Abdeh, is a cofounder of the Syrian exile group Movement for Justice and Development.
The leaked documents show that the U.S. has provided at least $6 million to Barada TV and other opposition groups inside Syria, the newspaper said.
And here is Obama fixin’ to get with invading Syria to put a real kick-ass thumping on Basher Assad of Syria along with a real good clout:
“AP sources: US closer to calling for Assad to go”
By BRADLEY KLAPPER and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press
10 MAY 2011
WASHINGTON The Obama administration is edging closer to calling for an end to the long rule of the Assad family in Syria.
end quotes
This is what the good Congresswoman should be looking into, how the brainless Obama and equally brainless Hillary Clinton got us into this Syria mess, not what our policy is now, because we are in a real mess over there thanks to Obama and Hillary Clinton, both of whom should have to answer to America and the world as to just what the hell it was the pair of them were thinking when they took it upon themselves to ineptly try to remove Basher Assad from power in Syria, which takes us back to that article as follows:
Administration officials said Tuesday that the first step would be to say for the first time that President Bashar Assad has forfeited his legitimacy to rule, a major policy shift that would amount to a call for regime change that has questionable support in the world community.
end quotes
And look at that silly horse****, people, because that is how we got mired in Syria where we now have as our only policy get the **** out of the way because here come the Turks in one direction, and there go the Kurds and the Syrian army the Kurds have now hooked up with in the other, towards the Turks, so it looks like a good “shoot-em-out-with-all-you-got” is out ahead, and our troops face getting caught in the middle, as well as being branded betrayers by the Kurds.
Getting back to how Obama the Brainless got us into this mess we are now reading about, we have:
The tougher U.S. line almost certainly would echo demands for “democratic transition” that the administration used in Egypt and is now espousing in Libya, the officials said.
But directly challenging Assad’s leadership is a decision fraught with problems:
Arab countries are divided, Europe is still trying to gauge its response, and there are major doubts over how far the United States could go to back up its words with action.
end quotes
And boy, people, with respect to that last sentence, don’t we just know today that however far Obama thought he would take us to back up his empty words with action, it wasn’t near far enough, and now we are caught in a quagmire of Barack Obama’s making!
Getting back to that history:
If the Syrian government persists with its harsh crackdown on political opponents, the U.S. could be forced into choosing between an undesired military operation to protect civilians, as in Libya, or an embarrassing U-turn that makes it look weak before an Arab world that is on the tipping point between greater democracy or greater repression.
Two administration officials said the U.S. is concerned about a prevailing perception that its response to Assad’s repression has been too soft, especially after helping usher long-time ally Hosni Mubarak out of power in Egypt and joining the international military coalition to shield civilians from attacks by Moammar Gadhafi’s forces in Libya.
“We’re getting close,” one official said on the question of challenging Assad’s legitimacy, adding that such a step would oblige the U.S. and, if other countries agree, the international community, to act.
But one of the things holding the administration back is a classic “better-the-devil-you-know” scenario.
The officials say there is a lack of any organized opposition in Syria, and little understanding of what the alternatives are to four decades of rule under Assad and his father, and whether a chaotic power void would lead to even greater bloodshed.
And here is Hillary Clinton getting her running mouth into the game, as could be expected of DRAMA QUEEN Hillary:
“Syria’s Assad ‘not indispensible’: Clinton”
By Karen Bleier | AFP
12 JULY 2011
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad was “not indispensible” and expressed hope for a “democratic transformation” in his country.
“President Assad is not indispensible and we have absolutely nothing invested in him… remaining in power,” Clinton said.