On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN-05) addressed the floor of Congress to discuss the growing talks of possible American militaristic interventionism into Syria.

Below is the prepared text of his floor speech.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Senator John McCain became the first U.S. Senator to publicly call for U.S.-led air strikes to halt the violence in Syria.  

Respectfully, I disagree with the Senator from Arizona. 
Our main goal in the Middle East is to protect our interests and the interest of our major ally Israel.   If we are to be dragged into a civil war in Syria for humanitarian reasons, I would respectfully remind Senator McCain and the President that they do not have the power to unilaterally start a war. 

The authority to initiate war is vested by the Constitution exclusively in Congress.   And the War Powers Act was enacted into law over a Presidential Veto - not an easy thing to accomplish - to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States in requiring the President to seek the consent of Congress before the introduction of the United States Armed Forces into hostile action. 

Section 2(c) of the War Powers Act provides that no attempt by the President to introduce the United States Armed Forces into hostile action may be made under the War Powers act unless there is "(1) a declaration of war, (2) a specific authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possession, or its armed forces. 

The Constitution and the War Powers Act are  not a list of suggestions, they are the law of the land.  The law the President of the United States, and every Member of Congress swears to protect and to defend.  

Contrary to Defense Secretary Panetta's assertion before the Senate Armed Services Committee the other day international permission does NOT trump congressional permission. 

If the President is even remotely entertaining the idea of engaging in military action in Syria, he MUST seek formal authorization from Congress to attack Syria first.

While the violence in Syria is appalling and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is certainly no friend of the United States; before any military action is taken, the President must tell Congress and the American people by  what right we attack Syria. 

Syria has not declared war on the United States nor attacked the United States, our territories, possession, or  armed forces.  

It is NOT our responsibility to intervene simply because violence erupts in another nation.  If it were, then bombs should be falling on Yemen, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Sudan, Rwanda, North Korea, Burma; I could go on and on. 

In fact, just this past Tuesday, March 6th, the former top United Nations humanitarian official in Sudan warned on that the country's military is carrying out crimes against humanity in the country's southern Nuba Mountains in acts that remind him of the 2003-2004 Genocide in Darfur.   Sudan President Omar al-Bashir is under indictment for war crimes by the International Criminal Court for killings and rapes committed in Darfur.  Roughly 5,000 people have died in Syria compared to 400,000 in Darfur.  How are the actions of al-Assad any worse than the actions of al-Bashir?    Where is the call to bomb Sudan?

Well respected organizations, including Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International have documented the crimes committed by Burma’s military.  Many of the abuses committed by the Burmese regime represent some of the world’s most horrific ongoing atrocities.  For example, the regime has destroyed over 3,300 ethnic minority villages in eastern Burma alone, recruited tens of thousands of child soldiers, forced up to 2 million people to flee their homes as refugees and internally displaced, and used rape as a weapon of war against the women of Burma.  How is the violence going on in Syria any worse than the destruction and degradation committed by the  Burmese Junta?   

North Korea is widely acknowledged to be the worst violator of Human Rights in the world.   The regime cares so little for its people that authorities are imprisoning for six months in labor-training camp anybody who didn't participate in the organized gatherings during the mourning period for the late Kim Jung Il, or who did participate but didn't cry and didn't seem genuine.    Six months in a labor camp for not crying?!  North Korea is a recognized State sponsor of terror; a proliferator of  nuclear weapons, and a direct threat to United States forces in South Korea; yet no one is urging the bombing of North Korea.

The world is full despotic and oppressive regimes.  The sad fact is that even in 2012, more of the world labors in the shadow of tyranny than in the daylight of democracy and the rule of law.  many of the world's leaders are at least as bad as Qaddafi and Al-Assad, and many are even worse.  We are not the world's policeman.

Even if we are willing to ignore the hypocrisy of  using military force in Syria for "humanitarian reasons" while we turn a blind eye to other equally pressing humanitarian crisis around the world, there are several practical issues surrounding an operation in Syria that make it ill-advised.

Libya and Syria are very different countries with different geographies, and different military's.

The Libyan army of Qaddafi was far less capable than Syria's army under Assad. Its forces were not as well-trained, as well-led, or as well-armed.  In fact, Qaddafi had decisively turned on his armed forces after a series of military coup attempts in the 1980s and 1990s. In the place of a professional military, Qaddafi increasingly relied on the Revolutionary Committees, many of whom defected in mass within days of protests breaking out against his rule.

Even against such a weak opposition, NATO's bombing campaign only succeed in pushed loyalist forces back, the rebels were unable to advance very far.  As the battle turned into a stalemate, NATO and others were forced to raise its commitment. Trainers were sent in and NATO personnel shared space in the rebels’ operations room in Benghazi. Qatar had to ship in approximately 30 consignments of Milan anti-tank cannons and Belgian FN rifles. During the final assault on Qaddafi’s compound, Qatari forces even found themselves leading the charge.

Nearly a year into the civil war to oust President Assad, the Syrian army remains largely intact.  In addition, Syria has a "substantial" chemical and biological weapons capability and thousands of surface-to-air missiles and shoulder-launched missiles, making Syria much more of a threat to attacking air forces than Libya.   How will the American people react if an American pilot is shot down and captured by the Syrian Army, or worse, Syria's terrorist proxy Hezbollah? 

In addition, if air power is to be used against Assad's regime as it was used to overthrow Qaddafi's, then it is certain that the venture will take longer than the six months it took in Libya. The price in Syrian blood, on both sides will be higher, and the geography of the country -- without the vast stretches of desert between towns that were turned into shooting galleries when Qaddafi tried to move his forces -- would guarantee more civilian casualties from NATO bombs than occurred in Libya.  How many civilian casualties are acceptable to prevent a humanitarian crisis?  

Other questions that need to be addressed; what will Israel do if Hezbollah responds to Western military action against Syria by launching rockets into Israel?  What will Iran do to protect its ally in Damascus?

Finally, brutally, we must ask the question; is the devil we know better than the devil we don't know?   We had very little intelligence on the rebels in Libya and consequently little clue as to what a post-Qaddafi Libya would turn into; and right now it doesn't look like Libya is going to turn into a model Arab Democracy.  If anything, it is turning more Islamic.   We know barely more about the Syrian rebel forces then we knew about the Libyan rebel forces; but I can tell you that what we do know about the Syrian rebels is very disturbing. 

While Senator McCain may angrily deny it, the assessment of the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and half a dozen intelligence reports and independent news agency is that al-Qaida has inserted themselves inside armed opposition groups in Syria.  Do we really want to undertake “a significant military commitment” - those are the words of Marine Gen. James Mattis, head of U.S. Central Command - to create so called “safe havens” in Syria to deliver weapons and supplies to al-Qaida fighters from Iraq?

I believe that the sun is slowly setting on the Assad era in Syria.  I sincerely hope that we are not pushed into a war we do not fully understand and that we don't really need to be in.