Sullivan Outlines Opposition to Yemen War Resolution on Senate Floor
“We all want a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Yemen, and we all want an end to the humanitarian disaster in Yemen… I do not believe that either of these goals will be made easier or advanced by less American involvement in the conflict.”
WASHINGTON, DC– Yesterday, in a speech on the Senate floor, U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK) outlined his opposition to S.J. RES 54, a resolution restricting U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen. S.J. RES 54 passed the Senate today by a vote of 56 to 41, with Sullivan voting in opposition.
Senator Sullivan Outlines Opposition to S.J. RES. 54 (click here or image to watch).
Key Highlights:
- “(T)he heinous murderers of [Jamal Khashoggi] need to be held accountable. There is no doubt about that.”
- “We all want a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Yemen , and we all want an end to the humanitarian disaster in Yemen. The reason I voted against the resolution today is because I do not believe that either of these goals will be made easier or advanced by less American involvement in the conflict. To the contrary, if the United States no longer has the ability to help guide the Saudis militarily in Yemen , I believe these two important goals--ending the humanitarian crisis and bringing a peaceful resolution--will actually be harder to reach.”
- “If we cut off U.S. military assistance to Riyadh and Yemen, you had better believe the one capital in the Middle East that will be cheering the loudest is Tehran--again, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. Such an action would further embolden Iran and no doubt embolden its proxies, while at the same time our allies, including Israel, would feel less secure.”
- “There has been a lot of focus on the horrible death of Mr. Khashoggi. Any death is horrible, but let me talk about some other deaths. In the Middle East, in Iraq, we have had over 500 American military members killed and almost 2,000 wounded by improvised explosive devices supplied to Iraqi Shia militias by the Iranians.”
- “We need to send a strong message to the Saudis, but that message cannot undercut our own national security or those of our allies. The message cannot strengthen what clearly is the biggest threat in the region; that is, Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism.”
- “I voted against this resolution because I still think it is important to keep in mind that the lens through which we need to assess our security interests and those of our allies in the Middle East is through what helps or undermines Iran. I am concerned that this resolution can help them, and that is not good for the United States, it is not good for the war in Yemen , it is not good for the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen , and it is certainly not good for our allies like Israel.”
S.J. RES. 54 (Senate - December 12, 2018)
Mr. President, we have been debating for quite some time on the Senate floor the Yemen war powers resolution introduced by my colleagues Senator Sanders and Senator Lee, which would cut off support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen --support that began under President Obama.
Surrounding this vote today, many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed extreme frustration with the Saudi Crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman, especially regarding the death of Jamal Khashoggi, an American-based Saudi journalist murdered in Turkey. I have a lot of respect for the Senators weighing in, making their arguments all day today, including Senators YOUNG, LEE, CORKER, PAUL, GRAHAM, MURPHY, MENENDEZ, and CARDIN--many. We do need to understand what happened, what our intelligence and our government have surrounding this death. I am glad the CIA Director came to the Hill to brief Members. But this debate has taken something of a much more complex turn.
Certainly, the heinous murderers need to be held accountable. There is no doubt about that. But what we have been discussing, and what is really being implicated here on the floor--which hasn't really been talked about too much--is the broader issue of U.S. or American presence in the region, not just regarding the current conflict in Yemen but also our broader strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia and our national security interests in the region.
My colleagues are justified in their frustration--no doubt I share it as well--with the Saudis, with what is happening, but removing American leadership and oversight from this conflict through this resolution is not the way we should go about addressing this issue. We are trying to execute a policy that both reflects America's values and our national security interests. That is what is being debated here today. We need to send a strong message to the Saudis, but that message cannot undercut our own national security or those of our allies. The message cannot strengthen what clearly is the biggest threat in the region; that is, Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism, which almost nobody on the Senate floor has been talking about over the last several weeks. I intend to.
Today's vote has meant different things to different Senators. I have watched and listened to floor speeches. I have participated in debates with my colleagues within the Republican Conference and when all the Senators have met when we were briefed by administration officials.
I thought I would try to unpack a little bit of some of these different arguments as I have seen them and provide my views.
Generally, this debate is focused in three different areas: One, about the constitutional authority--the War Powers Act--that we have actually been undertaking these kind of operations with the Saudis in Yemen . The other is limiting and ending U.S. assistance to Saudi operations--U.S. military assistance--in Yemen . Finally, some Senators have been focused on downgrading the U.S. relationship with the Saudis because of what has been happening both in Yemen and with the Khashoggi murder.
First, let me talk about the constitutional arguments on the War Powers Act; that the Trump administration needs congressional authority, either pursuant to the War Powers Act or, more important, pursuant to article II of the U.S. Constitution, to conduct military operations in support of Saudi Arabia's military goals in Yemen.
Senator Lee has done a great job of pressing this issue. There are many issues on which I agree with Senator Lee of Utah. He is clearly one of this body's most knowledgeable and passionate Members in safeguarding constitutional prerogatives, but in this case, I simply disagree with him and the other Senators whose views I view as way too restrictive on the Commander in Chief's ability to utilize our military.
If we set the precedent that even an operation such as the refueling of aircraft of allied countries, not even occurring in a war zone, needs congressional authority either through the War Powers Act or article II, we would severely limit the executive branch's ability to direct international crises and safeguard our global national security interests. I believe the notion that refueling allied aircraft constitutes hostilities would be an unworkable precedent and is a stretch of the term.
I have also been skeptical of Senate attempts to vote to remove Presidential authority on our military operations once those operations have begun. For example, we had a debate on military operations and the authority of our military to operate in Afghanistan, which I believe sends the wrong message to our troops. It is a precedent that once hostilities begin, we don't have the backs of our forces. I think that is also a dangerous precedent.
That is not to say this is not an important debate. It is certainly an important debate. Other Members such as Senator Kaine have talked about the importance of the issue of military authority, but with regard to this discussion, I think it is too limiting.
Let me talk about the second major issue involved that most Senators have been focused on: whether to vote to affirmatively end U.S. military assistance to Saudi Arabia and their actions in Yemen and whether and how, in doing so, it will help end the humanitarian disaster going on there.
I compliment Senator Young and Senator Murphy, who have been making the case passionately on this topic with much expertise. Clearly, they and this body have been focused on two goals: We all want a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Yemen , and we all want an end to the humanitarian disaster in Yemen.
The reason I voted against the resolution today is because I do not believe that either of these goals will be made easier or advanced by less American involvement in the conflict. To the contrary, if the United States no longer has the ability to help guide the Saudis militarily in Yemen , I believe these two important goals--ending the humanitarian crisis and bringing a peaceful resolution--will actually be harder to reach.
That is not just my view; that was the view of Secretary Mattis and Secretary Pompeo when they came to brief all 100 Senators 2 weeks ago. In particular, Secretary Mattis knows the region and certainly knows about how hostilities end and begin in the region.
The basis of their arguments--with which I agree--was, first, there is no doubt the Saudis have prosecuted the war badly, but both the Obama administration's Department of Defense and the Trump administration's Department of Defense have worked hard to minimize casualties.
Does anyone actually believe the situation in Yemen will improve without U.S. assistance and guidance? The question almost answers itself. Having our military involved has helped the Saudis improve their coordination and improve their targeting to minimize civilian casualties. Having our military involved has helped the Saudis manage disagreements between them and their Gulf coalition partners. These partners also play an important role in helping to bring an end to this war.
Having our military involved has also helped provide critical leverage as we move into the hopeful peace negotiations underway in Sweden as we speak. Yemen's Government and the Houthi rebels have evidently agreed to a prisoner swap, which could include thousands of prisoners and could be the beginning of a diplomatic breakthrough.
I had the opportunity to talk with Secretaries Mattis and Pompeo this weekend. Both said this would be exactly the wrong time, at a key diplomatic moment, to have the United States limit and end its military assistance to Saudi Arabia.
I know sometimes people don't like to think this way, but military strength and leverage is often critical--critical to successful diplomatic negotiations. For the first time, there is promise--promise in negotiations in Sweden. All of us want that to succeed. However, I believe we undermine our chances of success in these diplomatic efforts if Congress forces the United States to end military assistance to the Saudis.
We also have an even more direct and real national security interest in the region. Yemen is an important front in the war on terror: It is the home to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP. They have attempted multiple times to directly attack our homeland. They were responsible for the attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 sailors and severely wounded 39 others, and they were responsible for the 2015 massacre at Charlie Hebdo's offices in Paris. Limiting our military involvement in Yemen could pose significant risk with regard to AQAP that I believe would be unacceptable for the American people.
The third line of argument we have seen on the floor and many have been discussing goes much broader than just the relationship between our military involvement in Yemen and really implicates the entire U.S.-Saudi strategic relationship. It is the desire of a number of my colleagues to use this debate and the despicable Khashoggi murder as an opportunity to fully downgrade this decades-old strategic relationship.
The Saudis are difficult partners, no doubt. They have been for decades. Last week, when I was presiding, Senator Rubio gave an excellent speech saying that he believed the Saudis are testing the limits of their relationship with the United States and that we should look to draw some hard lines and recalibrate elements of our relationship while demanding improvements in other areas. I agreed with much of Senator Rubio's speech, including his conclusion, like mine, that we should not be cutting off our military assistance to the Saudis in Yemen because it would do much more harm than good.
Nevertheless, some Senators have argued for much more downgrading of the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. In fact, so much of this has been exclusively focused on the Saudis, with no other reference to any other country in the Middle East, that it seems this debate on the floor has been in a vacuum, but as we know, there are a lot more countries in the region, including the world's biggest sponsor of state terrorism, Iran, which nobody is talking about. We should be talking about them because, in fact, the war in Yemen began when Tehran-backed Houthi rebels seized power in 2015. Again, there is not a lot of discussion about how it began.
Tehran is trying to establish a Hezbollah-like entity on the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen , including increased capabilities to target cities in Saudi Arabia with ballistic missiles supplied by Iran. This is all part of Iran's broader strategy in the region to encircle our traditional allies--whether Saudi Arabia, Gulf Arab States, and of course Israel--with proxy fighters throughout Syria, Lebanon, Yemen , and close relationships in Iraq. Yet no one in this debate seems to want to talk about Iran. I thought I would do so for a minute.
Let's talk about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen . U.S. humanitarian aid has totaled almost $697 million in the past 14 months. Yes, Saudi Arabia could do a much better job, but they have invested well over $1 billion to try to end the suffering. Iran--the country which started the war, the country nobody on the Senate floor is talking about--not a dime to relieve the suffering. Sure, they have supplied weapons and ballistic missiles in the tens of millions of dollars but nothing to relieve the suffering.
If we cut off U.S. military assistance to Riyadh and Yemen , you had better believe the one capital in the Middle East that will be cheering the loudest is Tehran--again, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. Such an action would further embolden Iran and no doubt embolden its proxies, while at the same time our allies, including Israel, would feel less secure.
As this debate has carried on in the Senate, with no one talking about the largest state sponsor of terrorism, I have found it very troubling because the lens through which we need to view security in the Middle East is through Iran. Although we have dissatisfaction and frustration with some of our allies, we must remember the most significant and serious threat in the Middle East continues to be Iran.
There has been a lot of focus on the horrible death of Mr. Khashoggi. Any death is horrible, but let me talk about some other deaths.
In the Middle East, in Iraq, we have had over 500 American military members killed and almost 2,000 wounded by improvised explosive devices supplied to Iraqi Shia militias by the Iranians. Let me say that again: Over 2,000 Americans killed and wounded by the largest state sponsor of terrorism. Yet nobody seems to talk about that. Yes, one death of an American journalist is horrible. Over 2,000 American dead and wounded is really horrible. Where was the outrage about those deaths? Where was the outrage about those murders? Where were the editorials about those murders of American citizens? The previous administration wasn't focused on those because they were focused on the Iran nuclear deal.
All I am saying is, in this debate, nobody is talking about the real enemy of the United States--the Iranians, who are watching this debate and smiling because no one is talking about them. So I thought it was important to come down and say: Some of us are. Some of us know you are behind the war in Yemen . Some of us know you continually say you want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Some of us know the Iran deal only emboldened you.
What we need to keep in mind is, yes, we have difficult partners. No doubt the Saudis are difficult. They are not perfect by any sense of the word.
But this is a difficult region, and these are difficult issues, and if we think we can debate Yemen and our help there without talking about the Saudis and the Iranians, who started the war and are trying to circle our different allies, including Israel, and think somehow that this debate is not emboldening them more, I think we are misguided.
I voted against this resolution because I still think it is important to keep in mind that the lens through which we need to assess our security interests and those of our allies in the Middle East is through what helps or undermines Iran. I am concerned that this resolution can help them, and that is not good for the United States, it is not good for the war in Yemen , it is not good for the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen , and it is certainly not good for our allies like Israel.
###
Next Article Previous Article
