Rep. Austin Scott: On ISIL…

Your Washington – GA 8 – Desk

On ISIL…

There has been much attention recently about the threat of the Islamic State terrorist group and conflict in Syria and Iraq. This is a very real threat and one we must take seriously. Yet as a response, the President requested that Congress approve a proposal to train and equip “moderate” Syrian rebels. Congress rubber stamped this proposal, and in doing so, gave tacit support for the Administration’s bewildering Middle East policies. I did not support the amendment, as I feel we must carefully reevaluate our approach to the Middle East, and there is a significant risk of mission creep with the latest Administration strategy.

Just last year, Secretary Kerry testified that we should intervene against the Assad regime, despite it clearly not being a threat to America nor of vital national security interest. As it turns out, such strikes may have actually made the threat of ISIL worse than it is now. When he testified before the House Armed Services Committee in September 2013, I asked him whether the President supported the Powell Doctrine as a guide for deciding when to take our nation to war. Secretary Kerry could not provide a clear answer, but promised to deliver to me a list of the principles of war and the foreign policy doctrine of the Administration within twenty four hours. A year later, he has failed to do so, and the Administration’s strategy is so confusing that even the top administration officials cannot identify it.

For example, this past Thursday, Defense Secretary Hagel testified that “we are at war and all options are on the table.” The statement was followed by a release from the White House quoting the President that “as your Commander in Chief, I will not commit you and the rest of our Armed Forces, to fighting another ground war in Iraq”.

To add to this confusion, it is perplexing how the President can call for additional missions while we are cutting back our military. The drastic cuts to our defense budget, which is the only area this Administration seems comfortable cutting, are a self-inflicted wound and perhaps a bigger threat to our national security than any external threat.

Foreign military interventions are always costly, in lives and in money. We cannot take responsibility for a problem when nations in the Middle East stay on the sidelines and when the Iraqi military, which we invested so heavily in, disintegrates. The United States has been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than most of those that we are fighting have been alive. The fight among Sunni and Shia has been much longer; it started in the Seventh Century.

It has been so brutal that countries like Saudi Arabia are considered moderate. They practice Sharia law, and multiple sources suggest the Saudis beheaded 8 people last month. Conversion from Islam to any other faith is punishable by death, a disagreement on how to practice Islam recently landed a Shia Muslim 1000 lashes and a 10 year prison sentence in Saudi Arabia. This is where we will now train approximately 5,000 “moderate” Syrian Rebels to take on ISIL, at least that is what the vote was for Wednesday.

I am not for taking an isolationist approach, we must defeat ISIL. However, we seem overly focused on immediate threats while potential adversaries, like Iran, Russia, and China, are rapidly approaching military parity as a result of our failure to modernize our capabilities and properly prioritize how we use our forces. Rather than continue to cut our military, we need to get our fiscal house in order by addressing the real drivers of our national debt, entitlement spending. Not doing so is actually one of the most serious national security challenges we face.

When we do decide to use our military, it is important that we act decisively, rather than the Administration’s tepid approach. My grandfather, a B-17 pilot and POW in WWII, would advise me “now, if you have not made the decision to do what it takes to win the war then don’t go- you will just get more people killed. Now, once you have decided to win, get in, get it done, and come home.”

If I were to speak to him about the Administration’s foreign policy strategy, I’m certain he would give me the same feedback he often did on the farm when pulling in to check on the bulls…. “Smells like money”.

Sincerely,

Austin Scott
Member of Congress