Submitted by: Debbie Beatty
RUBIO: MY VOTE AGAINST MILITARY ACTION IN SYRIA
Rubio: “While I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the Syrian people, I have never supported the use of
U.S. military force in the conflict. And I still don’t. I remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work.”
Rubio Explains Vote Against U.S. Military Action in Syria
Senator Marco Rubio
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Business MeetingSeptember 4, 2013
http://youtu.be/QiOgETBVrgc
Senator Marco Rubio: “What is happening in Syria is a vital national security concern for the
United States. I know Syria is far way, and some may wonder why it matters. But it matters for several reasons.
“First,
Syria is of vital importance to Iran and to their ambitions to become
the foremost power in the region. They use Syria to arm Hezbollah and
then to attack Israel. They
use it to traffic weapons and terrorists to destabilize Iraq. Second,
Assad is a dangerous anti-American dictator. For example, he helped
terrorists get into Iraq so they could maim and kill American soldiers.
Third, this prolonged conflict is creating vast
ungoverned spaces in Syria which are turning into the premier
operational area in the world for jihadists to operate. And fourth, if
Assad does not face consequences for what he has done, and is doing, it
sends a message to other rogue governments like North
Korea and Iran that they too can cross red lines without fear.
“However,
while I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the
Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in
the conflict. And I still
don’t. I remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will
work. The only thing that will prevent Assad from using chemical weapons
in the future is for the Syrian people to remove him from power. The
strike the administration wants us to approve
I do not believe furthers that goal. And in fact, I believe U.S.
military action of the type contemplated here might prove to be
counterproductive.
“After
a few days of missile strikes, it will allow Assad, for example, to
emerge and claim that he took on the United States, and survived. And by
the way, I also think this
action could unleash a series of events that could further destabilize
the region. This idea that a military response is the only way to
respond to what is happening in Syria is just not true. Instead our
response should have always have been, and should still
be, a multifaceted plan to help the Syrian people can get rid of Assad
and replace him with a secular and moderate government they deserve. And
I believe this committee, by a vote of 15 to 3 has already put forth a
plan that accomplishes that, the Syrian Transition
Support Act.
“First,
we should openly provide lethal support and increase non-lethal support
to carefully and properly vetted elements of the opposition. By the
way, we should only do this
if we are able to identify rebel groups that will not transfer those
weapons to Al Qaeda or other jihadist groups. Second, we would pursue
severe sanctions against individuals and financial institutions that
have provided or facilitated the sale or transfer
of weapons, petroleum and/or petroleum products to Assad. Third, we
should create a transition fund that will assist with a transition to a
moderate transitional government in Syria in the aftermath of Assad’s
fall. And fourth, we should increase humanitarian
aid to the Syrian people and to the countries that are hosting Syrian
refugees.
No comments:
Post a Comment