Rep. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) called for the United States to take action Wednesday, stating, "We have a vital interest in maintaining the international taboo against chemical weapons," during the House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on Syria:
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS COTTON (R., ARK.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kerry, Mr. Hagel, General Dempsey, thank you for your time and your service, most importantly, in uniform: Mr. Kerry, Mr. Hagel as young men, General Dempsey as a young man and now as a more seasoned man as well.
I have grown weary for several months -- not weary of war because I know, as each of you know, that war is sometimes the price that a free society must pay to defend our freedom and to protect our interests abroad.
I have grown weary of the president's war-weariness. I have called for months for action in Syria. I feel that action should have been taken years ago. I am deeply worried that our core national security interests are at stake in Syria.
Mr. Kerry, you said that the president does not bluff. I fear that both our enemies and our allies do not believe that statement. For some time now, we have let Iran violate numerous United Nations resolutions. In Syria, we have not acted previously on uses of chemical weapons. And I do believe the world is watching. And the day the United States does not act is not just the day that Bashar al- Assad knows it's open season for chemical weapons, but also the day Kim Jong-un knows that and most ominously, the day that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, spins his centrifuges into overdrive, which starts the clock ticking to the less-than-two-year moment when those nuclear warheads on intercontinental missiles could hit our constituents here in the United States.
I agree with what my colleague, Adam Kinzinger has said, that we have a vital interest in maintaining the international taboo against chemical weapons. All of you, like me, have been in training, I suspect, where you've been exposed to gas. And you know that no one benefits from that taboo more than do American troops.
And I'm also deeply worried that our inaction is destabilizing the Middle East -- in particular, our allies in Israel and Jordan as well as Turkey and emboldening Iran, one of our most implacable enemies, as they send thousands of troops to fight in Syria, along with Hezbollah, its terrorist proxy from Lebanon. So that is why miracle of miracles, I am in support of the president's call for action in Syria. I'm urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this action as well.
However, the president's stated policy was not just a red line against chemical weapons -- which, as Mr. Sherman said, occurred without any objection from members of Congress and occurred before he was re-elected by the American people; it was also a stated policy of regime change. So I would like to ask you, what is the president planning that could lead not just to punishment for this use of chemical weapons, but also an ultimate victory in Syria, which is a change in the nature of the regime so they will not use chemical weapons again and so that a pro-Western, moderate native Syrian government can take its place?
SEC. KERRY: Well, Congressman, thank you for a very clear and compelling statement, and thank you for the support for the president's initiative for the interests of the country. With respect to the longer term, you're absolutely correct, but I want to separate here, because it's very important in terms of what the president is asking the Congress for.
Yes, the president's policy is that Assad must go and there should be a regime change. And the president is committed to additional efforts in support of the opposition, together with friends and allies in the region in a coordinated way in order to achieve that with the understanding that the ultimate transition will come and can come through a negotiated settlement -- a political resolution, not a military -- he doesn't believe that -- we don't believe there is a military solution.
But this action -- because nobody should be confused -- Americans should not be confused, and I said earlier, you know, this is not an effort to take over Syria's civil war. It is an effort to uphold this standard. And the action the president is asking the Congress to approve is not -- is a singular military action to uphold that standard with respect to chemical weapons.
On a separate track is the political track, which the president is seeking support for through appropriate channels here in Congress, which is in effect now to help the opposition in order to ultimately see Assad leave. But don't -- we don't want to confuse the two in the context. Is there a downstream collateral benefit to what will happen in terms of the enforcement of the chemical weapons effort? The answer is yes, it will degrade his military capacity. It will, for sure, have downstream impact.
But that is not the primary calculation of what brings us here, and nobody should confuse the two in this effort.