On Monday’s broadcast of CNN’s “Situation Room,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) argued the U.S. should decrease its military and security presence in Syria and Iraq “in part because we end up being targets for a lot of these militia groups. And, ultimately, we could be in a situation where a large number of Americans get killed, perhaps by an Iranian-backed militia, and then we are in a very different scenario, perhaps with the necessity of delivering a strike at Iran itself.”
Host Wolf Blitzer asked, “I want to get your thoughts on another sensitive issue that seems to be exploding right now, American forces, U.S. forces in Syria, Senator, as you well know, have come under attack at least four times since the U.S. carried out airstrikes on Iranian proxy targets there in Syria. That was last night. Why have U.S. retaliatory strikes failed to deter these Iranian-backed aggressors?”
Murphy answered, “Iranian-backed aggressors are a dispersed force without a central command structure. They certainly get a permission slip from Iran, but they are often acting alone. And so, we may hit one group and then get attacked the next day by another group. And, to me, this begs the long-term question, are we sure that the United States is getting more benefit than risk from the large number of somewhat unprotected forces that we have in the region? I have long called for the United States to downsize its military and security footprint in places like Syria and Iraq, in part because we end up being targets for a lot of these militia groups. And, ultimately, we could be in a situation where a large number of Americans get killed, perhaps by an Iranian-backed militia, and then we are in a very different scenario, perhaps with the necessity of delivering a strike at Iran itself. None of us want to be in that position. And so, we’ve got to have a long-term conversation about how our forces are deployed in the region.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.