U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–127PDF 2015

ASSAD’S ABHORRENT CHEMICAL

WEAPONS ATTACKS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 17, 2015

Serial No. 114–57

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Robert Ford, senior fellow, The Middle East Institute ............... 4

Mohamed Tennari, M.D., Idlib coordinator, Syrian-American Medical

Society ................................................................................................................... 10

Mr. Farouq Habib, Syria program manager, Mayday Rescue ............................. 21

Annie Sparrow, M.B.B.S., deputy director human rights program, Assistant 

Professor of Global Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai ............ 28

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Robert Ford: Prepared statement ................................................. 6

Mohamed Tennari, M.D.: Prepared statement ...................................................... 12

Mr. Farouq Habib: Prepared statement ................................................................ 23

Annie Sparrow, M.B.B.S.: Prepared statement ..................................................... 30

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

Mohamed Tennari, M.D.: Material submitted for the record ............................... 63

Mr. Farouq Habib: Material submitted for the record ......................................... 68

Annie Sparrow, M.B.B.S.: Material submitted for the record .............................. 73

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 84

(1)

ASSAD’S ABHORRENT CHEMICAL

WEAPONS ATTACKS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order. This morning 

we consider the continued use of Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons strategy, his use of those chemical weapons on his own people. 

Two years ago, the world was stunned when Assad used sarin in 

the suburbs of Damascus—in that attack on that day 1,500 people 

were killed. In response, President Obama threatened military action, and the Assad regime agreed to a hastily brokered deal to remove and destroy what was to be ‘‘all’’ of Syria’s substantial stockpile. A year later, President Obama declared success. In February, 

Secretary Kerry testified that ‘‘we got . . . all the chemical weapons out of Syria.’’

Well, that would be news to two of our witnesses here today because they’ve been on the front lines struggling to save the lives 

of those targeted by the regime’s barrel bombs that are filled with 

weaponized chlorine. Dr. Tennari serves in the field hospital in 

Idlib Province and Mr. Farouq Habib works with the Syrian Civilian Defense—a group of volunteer first responders who dig through 

the rubble to treat victims. 

As the Assad regime loses more territory, the regime has stepped 

up its chemical attacks on the civilian population in opposition controlled areas. What first appeared to be random and irregular attacks has become a steady, unending series of chemical attacks 

with the aim of decimating the middle class in these civilian populations. And, meanwhile, that same Syrian middle class tries to 

hold off ISIS on the ground as ISIS tries to overrun their position, 

so they face a one-two punch of ISIS on their border and Assad’s 

barrel bombs with chlorine coming down on the population. 

Over 8 weeks this spring, Idlib saw 29 chlorine attacks. Most 

began just 10 days after the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution which threatened the use of force against anyone found to 

have used chlorine as a weapon. In almost cases, the chlorine was 

delivered by barrel bomb from a helicopter. Assad has seen the 

world’s complacency and decided that he can literally get away 

with mass murder of civilians. 

2

Anyone can be a target. The regime will even drop one bomb. It 

will then wait for the first responders, and then drop another one. 

Many chlorine attacks take place at night when families have 

taken cover. A heavy gas, a chlorine gas seeps down into makeshift 

bomb shelters. As we’ll hear, this toxic gas has a horrific impact 

on the human body: Foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath, and 

dying slow, agonizing deaths as the chlorine gas turns to hydrochloric acid in the lungs of the victims, many of these victims children. 

Unfortunately, the administration continues its slow response. 

Last month, the President still spoke of needing further confirmation that it was the Assad regime that is responsible for the chemical attacks. Let’s be clear: Only Assad’s forces have helicopters, 

only Assad’s forces have those helicopters take off from Assad’s 

bases and routinely drop barrel bombs on the civilian middle class 

in areas like Allepo. Yesterday, Ambassador Power told the committee here that those responsible for these attacks must be held 

accountable. Yes, they must, but when? When will they be held accountable? 

U.S. policy has to change. Last month, Ranking Member Engel 

and I offered a successful amendment to the defense policy bill directing the Pentagon to closely examine a no-fly zone over Syria, 

denying Assad ownership of the skies. Syrians would no longer be 

forced to choose between staying above ground where they could be 

killed by the shrapnel Assad packs inside the barrel bombs, or 

going below ground where they are more vulnerable to suffocating 

from chlorine gas. The daily decision to go to the market, or to go 

to the school, or to go to sleep at night would no longer be a life 

or death decision. 

Of course, the United States can’t do this on its own. It would 

need strong support and participation from our regional partners. 

Many of them have been asking and offering their support. 

The administration should also be looking at other more immediate, non-military methods that might save lives. Radar systems 

for opposition held area could serve as early warning systems. Air 

raid sirens could sound the alarm. Sensors could detect chemical 

weapons and allow first responders to be prepared as they rush to 

aid victims. 

This can’t just keep going on and on. If nothing is done, the 

human tragedy in Syria and the region will reach depths the world 

hasn’t seen in generations-taking a human toll, harming our security, and sending a powerful and frightening message that chemical 

attacks are tolerated. 

I now yield to Ranking Member Engel, an early and intense critic 

of the Assad regime and someone who has long worked to shape 

Syrian policy toward humanitarian end ever since he first called to 

our attention the people in Damascus walking through the streets 

saying, ‘‘Peaceful, peaceful,’’ in their effort to reform, and the fact 

that the Assad regime opened up on the civilian population with 

automatic weapons and slaughtered the population in the streets. 

He has long been focused on finding ways to end the civil war 

in Syria, and help the suffering of the Syrian people, and I appreciate his leadership on these issues. Mr. Engel. 

3

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this 

hearing. Thank you for your leadership and working so closely with 

me to help the Syrian people. 

My heart grieves for the Syrian people. I only wish that we had 

made some different policy choices in Washington 3 years ago when 

the Free Syria Army was begging us to aid and equip them. And 

I said then put in legislation that we should have equipped them, 

and perhaps things would be different today in Syria. I know we’re 

still trying to find our way, but when we didn’t equip them, we had 

the terrorist group, ISIS, move into the void, and it’s just been a 

disaster. But we still have to pay attention, and still have to right 

the wrongs, and still have to let the Syrian people know that we 

stand with them, that we’re not forgetting about them, and that 

we’re not going to stop until these atrocities stop. 

Over the last 4 years, the civil war in Syria has cost hundreds 

of thousands of lives, left millions displaced and created a lost generation of Syrian orphans. As their nation has been torn apart, the 

Syrian people have faced a stark choice, flee their country as refugees or live every day under the threat of Assad’s barrel bombs. 

Perhaps the worst chapter in this conflict came in August 2013 

when the Assad regime used sarin gas to wipe out hundreds of people in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. Before this massacre, only 

the second time sarin had been used since World War II, President 

Obama said that a chemical weapons attack would be a red line. 

As Congress and the administration contemplated military action, Assad backed down at that point. He agreed to give us his entire chemical weapons stockpile, and signed the Chemical Weapons 

Convention. Last June, the Joint Mission of the Organization of the 

Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the OPCW, and the United Nations announced that all of these weapons had been removed from 

Syria. But now, true to form, Assad is testing the international 

community again. 

In September, the OPCW concluded, and I quote, ‘‘with a high 

level, a high degree of confidence, that chlorine was used,’’ and this 

is a quote again, ‘‘systematically and repeatedly,’’ in attacks in 

Northern Syria. Since then, more chlorine attacks have been reported. Though not as deadly as sarin, the use of weaponized chlorine is still a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. 

Dropping from the sky in Assad’s barrel bombs, these chlorine attacks have killed or wounded hundreds. Innocent civilians have 

lived in terror knowing what to expect when helicopters appeared 

on the horizon. No one should have to live with that kind of fear. 

That’s why Chairman Royce and I offered a measure which passed 

the House last month to direct the Pentagon to take a hard look 

at the possibility of a no-fly zone. 

In recent months, Assad has appeared increasingly vulnerable. 

Sadly, that has only made his tactics more desperate and violent. 

Assad remains a magnet for extremists, and as long as he remains 

in power, Syria will not find peace. He holds absolutely no place 

in Syria’s future. 

Today’s testimony will help us shape U.S. policy toward the 

Assad regime at a critical point in the Syrian conflict. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel. I’m glad to see Ambassador Ford here again, who has been to this committee a numVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:31 Jul 29, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\061715\95127 SHIRL
4

ber of times. And, Ambassador, we are always praising your good 

work, the good work that you have done in the past, and the good 

work that you continue to do. And I look forward to our other witnesses, as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. 

Ambassador Ford, welcome. Ambassador Ford served as the 

United States Ambassador to Algeria from 2006 to 2008, and as the 

U.S. Ambassador to Syria from 2010 to 2014. Prior to that, the Ambassador was stationed with the U.S. Foreign Service throughout 

the Middle East and North Africa. He is currently a senior fellow 

at the Middle East Institute. 

Dr. Mohamed Tennari works as the Syrian American Medical Society’s medical coordinator in Idlib, Syria. He performs emergency 

medicine in local field hospitals. Dr. Tennari recently spoke before 

the United Nations Security Council about his experiences treating 

chlorine attack victims in Syria. Over the years, we’ve had the opportunity tragically to see the photographs that he has taken of 

children that he’s treated who perished under the gas attacks. 

Mr. Farouq Habib is a program manager at Mayday Rescue 

which is a nonprofit organization that provides support to Syria’s 

Civil Defense. Mr. Habib is a leading activist in Syria, and in 2012 

was invited to speak on humanitarian confidence-building measures at the U.N. General Assembly. 

Dr. Annie Sparrow is currently deputy director of the human 

rights program in the Department of Global Health at the Icahn 

School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. Dr. Sparrow has 

been documenting health crisis on the Syrian borders since 2012. 

And without objection, all of your statements will be made part 

of the record, and our members here will have 5 calendar days to 

submit any statements to you, or any questions, or any extraneous 

material that they might want to submit in the record. 

So, we will begin with Ambassador Ford, and we’ll ask each of 

you to summarize in 5 minutes for your opening statement. Ambassador Ford. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT FORD, SENIOR 

FELLOW, THE MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE 

Ambassador FORD. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, and 

other distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the 

invitation today, and it’s a real honor to be on this panel with the 

other members. I’m looking forward very much to seeing what they 

present. 

I would like to thank you very much for having this hearing. As 

you noted, it’s an important gesture to Syria and Syrian civilians, 

and it is the right and decent thing to do, but it’s also really important for our national security because the Islamic State in its recruiting efforts, its propaganda highlights that western countries 

like the United States don’t care about Syrian civilian casualties, 

and western countries don’t care that Assad is dropping chemical 

weapons on civilians. So, this hearing is an important step in deflecting that Islamic State recruitment propaganda. 

I’d like to just make a couple of quick points. First, in the very 

bitter war of attrition in Syria, the military situation is slowly but 

5

very steadily turning against President Assad and his regime. His 

forces are running out of manpower, and as that dynamic goes forward, the Syrian regime will more and more want to use chemical 

weapons to make up for manpower shortages. They are using them 

more now than they did 2 years ago, and they are not deterred 

from using them. Let me say that again. They are not deterred 

from using them. 

Now, after the horrors of World War I, the second point I want 

to make is that there has long been an international consensus not 

to use chemical weapons, including chlorine gas. The Syrian Government is using chlorine gas with impunity, and other states like 

North Korea are observing that impunity. We need to understand 

that an international consensus forged after World War I is steadily eroding. 

The third point I’d like to make: Ambassador Power and her 

team at the United Nations State Department are admirably trying 

to forge a new international consensus to stop this use of chlorine 

gas. The United Nations Security Council, even Russia and China, 

approved Resolution 2209 in March. That resolution warned the 

parties in the Syrian conflict that the international community 

would act under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter against any party 

in the Syrian conflict that is using chemical weapons. And as you 

mentioned, the Organization to Prohibit Chemical Weapons has already stated that they are being used in Syria. The problem is the 

OPCW investigative team had no mandate to determine which side 

in the conflict is using chemical weapons. So, Ambassador Power 

with other members of the Security Council now are trying to forge 

a mandate to determine how an investigative committee, an investigative team would determine that responsibility. 

Countries like Russia and Iran, both of whose armies in wars 

past have suffered horrible chemical weapons attacks, have an interest in working with us to stop this violation of a longstanding 

international norm. 

Finally, if the United Nations Security Council cannot act, and 

we have seen Russian vetoes before, then the United States needs 

to be ready to act within a smaller coalition. We could help Syrians 

identify and interdict chemical weapons attacks. We could also act 

with regional states to impose a no-fly zone, if necessary, to stop 

chemical weapons attacks. A no-fly zone would both save lives, and 

if properly negotiated and properly implemented, would actually facilitate getting to national political negotiations. 

It’s important to keep our eyes focused on priorities now in the 

short term to stop attacks that violate longstanding international 

norms, and in the long term to use any applications of force, direct 

or indirect, to move toward a political settlement in Syria. Ultimately, only a political settlement will really protect Syrian civilians. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Ford follows:]

6


95127a-1.eps
7


95127a-2.eps
8


95127a-3.eps
9


95127a-4.eps
10

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Dr. Tennari. 

STATEMENT OF MOHAMED TENNARI, M.D., IDLIB 

COORDINATOR, SYRIAN–AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Dr. TENNARI. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and honorable members of the committee on the House Foreign Affairs 

Committee, on behalf of the Syrian-American Medical Society and 

on behalf of Syrian medical professionals, and on behalf of the Syrian people, I thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of you 

today. 

I have traveled here today from my Province of Idlib in order to 

witness in front of you about the experiences of the chemical weapons use that I witnessed in Syria. 

Four years ago, I helped establish a field hospital in Sarmin, in 

Idlib Province. This is our fourth building after the first two were 

destroyed by Assad bombing. The Syrian Government systematically targets hospitals and ambulances in all non-government controlled areas. Even our field hospital that we operate in today has 

been subject to the bombing of the Assad regime 17 times, not to 

mention the systematic targeting of physicians in Syria on a regular basis only for being out there and treating people. 

I, myself, was arrested at the beginning of the revolution twice 

in 2011. My other medical colleagues have not been as lucky as I, 

and more of my friends are dead than those that are left alive. 

Over the last 4 years we have seen horrific violence against the 

civilians in Syria. That was in the form of barrel bombs, missile attacks, and regular shelling. In the past 3 months we have experienced a new type of terror, and that is in the form of barrel bombs 

that contain chemical weapons. Since March 16th of this year, we 

have documented 31 attacks using poisonous gas in Idlib Province, 

where more than 380 Syrian civilians were injured by it. Ten of 

them died of suffocation. The last attack was yesterday in Allepo 

in a small town. 

I remember well the night of March 16th when the first attack 

of poisonous gas was used. I heard helicopters over my house 

around 8:45 p.m., and I heard on my walkie-talkie the reports that 

there was another chemical attack that had just happened. I left 

my house immediately to head to the field hospital, and as soon as 

I left the house, I could smell chlorine bleach in the air. As soon 

as I arrived at the hospital there were many victims that had beaten me there, and all of them had symptoms of being subjected to 

suffocating, poisonous gas. 

Dozens of people experienced difficulty breathing, and their eyes 

and throats were burning. They were also secreting saliva and 

foam from their mouth. We were laying bodies on the floor because 

all of our beds were completely full, and our small hospital turned 

into a place of chaos and screaming. We started treating them by 

giving them oxygen gas and inhalers, as well as using different 

antidotes like Atropine and Intropine. 

As soon as we finished treating this first wave of people, we received another wave of people that came from another attack that 

hit Sarmin. From those who came in with that second wave, I saw 

11

my own friend, Mr. Waref Taleb. He, his wife, his mother, and 

three of his children under the age of three all came in with injuries. The three kids were all suffering from symptoms of being exposed to poisonous gas as they arrived. And this is a video from 

that night. 

[Video played.] 

Dr. TENNARI. This is the Town of Sarmin. This is the children 

that have been exposed to poisonous gas tonight. The reason 

they’re on top of each other is because the hospital had no room 

for any more victims. 

Everything that we did for them was not enough to save their 

lives. The barrel bomb had fallen through the ventilation shaft in 

their house and has turned their house and their basement into a 

gas chamber. 

I wish that this event was something that is unique or a onetime thing, but this is a regular event that goes on. On April 16th, 

only—very soon after this—1 month after this attack, I testified in 

front of the United Nations Security Council. Less than 2 hours 

after I finished my testimony I got another call saying that there 

was another chlorine attack, another poison gas attack that happened in Idlib Province. And as I sit here in front of you, I fear 

again that I may get a call in a couple of hours that tells me there 

was another chemical attack that has happened in my town. 

These chlorine-filled bombs are falling regularly over civilian 

areas, and this is what we call collective punishment by the Assad 

regime against the opposition. And although these attacks are not 

causing a huge amount of death, it has caused a lot of terror within 

the populations forcing people to become internally displaced and 

refugees. And this is what I consider the goal of the Assad regime 

in these attacks: To help displace the populations. 

In reaction to these chemical attacks by the regime, the international community gave us some medicines, including Atropine. 

And this is incredibly disappointing. That means the international 

community knows that the Assad regime will be using chemical 

weapons attacks against us, and will do nothing to prevent it. 

What we need is not Atropine, what we need is urgent help to stop 

these aerial attacks. 

I can tell you as a doctor that the number one cause of death of 

people in Syria are the explosive barrel bombs. And our number 

one and our main ask is for the international community to help 

protect us from these aerial attacks. And if it means using a nofly zone, that would so be it. I ask you to please work closely and 

urgently with the White House to figure out a plan to help stop 

these aerial attacks that are regularly bombarding us. 

I want to thank the committee for its leadership in addressing 

this important topic of ongoing chemical attacks in Syria. I hope 

bearing witness in front of you today can help show the dire need 

for immediate aid to help the civilians in Syria, and I hope that 

you move to take urgent action to end the barrel bombs and the 

chemical attacks in Syria. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Tennari follows:]

12


95127b-1.eps
13


95127b-2.eps
14


95127b-3.eps
15


95127b-4.eps
16


95127b-5.eps
17


95127b-6.eps
18


95127b-7.eps
19


95127b-8.eps
20


95127b-9.eps
21

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Dr. Tennari. 

We go now to Mr. Habib. 

STATEMENT OF MR. FAROUQ HABIB, SYRIA PROGRAM 

MANAGER, MAYDAY RESCUE 

Mr. HABIB. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and distinguished members of the committee, allow me first to thank you for 

giving me this opportunity to testify about the ongoing tragedy that 

the Syrian people are living through, particularly those who are 

the victims of the attacks of the chemical weapons, despite multiple 

international resolutions that prohibit using these horrific weapons. 

My name is Farouq Habib. When the Syrian revolution began, I 

was working as a banker in a private Syrian bank. My belief that 

my people have the right to live with dignity and freedom obliged 

me to join the peaceful movement to defend the human rights in 

Syria. Currently, I’m working for Mayday Rescue, managing the 

training and equipping program for rescue teams in Syria known 

as the White Helmets. 

Through my years of activism inside Syria since the beginning of 

the revolution, I personally witnessed deliberate attacks by the regime forces against civilians, hospitals, and rescue teams that were 

initially working spontaneously. 

Later, Syrians, particularly those in liberated areas, had to establish civil defense groups with only the tools available to them 

in order to respond to the intense and indiscriminate attacks. I now 

work with this organization to assist in responding to these attacks. Through my job, I constantly work with field search and rescue teams to determine their needs and find solutions for the challenges they face. Therefore, I closely monitor the attacks, particularly those carried out by unconventional weapons, as they pose the 

greatest challenge. 

These teams have faced an exceptional challenge with the regime’s use of barrel bombs as a horrific tool to impose collective 

punishment against communities out of the regime’s control. These 

TNT-filled weapons which eject nails, metal scrap, and other random cheap and harmful shrapnel take dozens of innocent lives 

every day, but for many Syrians have become merely traditional 

weapons compared to the more advanced bombs the regime developed by adding chlorine gas, which is inexpensive and readily 

available. This primitive, cheap, and indiscriminate weapon has become a source of constant panic among Syrian civilians due to the 

fear it spreads when people hear the news of its use in nearby 

areas. 

This dirty chemical weapon causes physical injuries that show 

through symptoms like suffocating and fainting, and can lead to 

death if the injured are not attended to in due course. These weapons are most dangerous if inhaled by people stranded in small 

spaces, and that is what happens to those stranded under the rubble of buildings that collapse on top of their residence due to the 

force of barrel bombs. 

Starting from the 16th of March this year, the regime resumed 

its chemical attacks against the opposition areas. Only 10 days 

after the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2209, which reaffirmed 

22

the prohibition and use of chlorine gas as a weapon and classified 

it as chemical warfare. The resolution also warned of taking action 

under Chapter 7 in the event it’s used again in Syria. This resolution is related to a previous resolution, 2113, which was released 

in 2015, and that called for destroying Syria’s chemical weapons, 

and also for taking action under Chapter 7 in the event the chemical weapons are used. Resolution 2209 is also related to the 2014 

Resolution 2139 which prohibits using conventional barrel bombs 

as weapons in Syria due to their indiscriminate nature. 

Unfortunately, during the 3 months that followed Resolution 

2209, the number of chlorine attacks was more than double those 

in the entire previous year. Yes, I repeat again. The number of 

chlorine attacks was more than double those in the entire previous 

year just after the Security Council resolution. 

Between March 16th and June 9th in 2015, Syria’s Civil Defense 

Teams responded to 23 air raids, during which 46 barrel bombs 

containing chlorine gas were dropped. And, of course, the actual 

number of the chemical attacks was even higher. 

I don’t think that anyone among this audience here today has 

the slightest degree of uncertainty about the identity of the perpetrator. There are hundreds of pieces of evidence including photographs, videos, and testimonies like the ones I attach here proving 

that this gas spreads from the aerially dropped barrel bombs, usually delivered by helicopters. As everyone knows, and as Ambassador Samantha Power has repeatedly noted, the Assad regime is 

the only one using helicopters in Syria excluding, of course, the coalition forces. 

Ladies and gentlemen, when I was struggling in Homs for democracy, I and my colleagues believed that there were nations 

around the world that supported the spread of democracy. I believed, and I organized others to rise up and challenge the dictatorship of Bashar al Assad, and have been waiting for 4 years for my 

faith in the values on which this great country was founded to be 

demonstrated. 

The dictator of Syria claims that he is fighting the Islamic State, 

but only last week both he and the Islamic State were attacking 

together the armed opposition in Northern Allepo. And just a few 

hours ago, the regime used chemical weapons again in Allepo City, 

itself. 

The legitimacy of the international community crumbles when it 

becomes merely ink on paper, forgotten in drawers of bureaucracy 

to become fatal. 

As the greatest power in today’s world, the United States, along 

with other international powers that chant human rights slogans 

and spread the values of justice and democracy, should move immediately to stop the killing machine operated by the Assad regime 

against the Syrian people. This can be done through imposing a nofly zone that would prevent the regime’s aircraft from continuing 

to drop chemical barrel bombs. A no-fly zone would also help to create a safe haven for civilians. No one can no longer use as an excuse the Security Council’s inability to impose its resolutions because in reality, for oppressed people everywhere, it has become 

the Insecurity Council due to its blatant failure to protect them. 

Thank you. 

23

[The prepared statement of Mr. Habib follows:]


95127c-1.eps
24


95127c-2.eps
25


95127c-3.eps
26


95127c-4.eps
27


95127c-5.eps
28

Chairman ROYCE. Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF ANNIE SPARROW, M.B.B.S., DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRAM, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF 

GLOBAL HEALTH, ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT 

SINAI 

Dr. SPARROW. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to 

speak today. 

For 2 years now, I’ve been traveling to the Syrian border where 

I do three things. As a critical care pediatrician, I train doctors inside Syria. As a doctor experienced in wars, many wars, I track and 

document the violations of medical neutrality and other human 

rights violations. And as a global health specialist, I track the devastating public health consequences which are, indeed, a consequence of the way Assad has chosen to fight this war by targeting civilians, by attacking doctors, by destroying hospitals and 

other civilian infrastructure that is vital to health. And it’s no accident that since March the 16th when the chlorine attacks renewed 

that the assaults on hospitals was likewise escalated. 

We know that after the chemical massacre August 2013, Assad 

was forced to give up his stockpiles of sarin but, unfortunately, 

that doesn’t work for chlorine, because unlike sarin, chlorine has 

legitimate and deeply important uses, the most important of which 

is its ability to decontaminate our drinking water. Syrians need it, 

just as America does. In fact, the way Assad has even withheld 

chlorine from opposition territory has fueled epidemics of disease, 

such as the polio outbreak of 2013 which then spread to Iraq. This 

in itself is an indirect method of biological warfare. 

And on top of that, chlorine is easy to manufacture. It’s even 

cheaply made from readily available industrial ingredients. Many 

of these bombs we know are made domestically, so forcing Assad 

to give up stockpiles just doesn’t work here. We have to stop Assad 

using it as a chemical weapon. And let me be quite clear here, 

using chlorine to kill and terrorize people makes it into a chemical 

weapon, a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and 

Obama’s redline even when the substance also has legitimate uses. 

As you’ve heard, these bombs are delivered simply by rolling 

them out of helicopters, which is the same way the barrel bombs, 

a far more effective way of killing people, are delivered. But together, the barrel bombs and the chlorine bombs create maximum 

trauma and terror. And the way he is using both currently to target civilians and hospitals is spectacularly effective in driving the 

exodus of millions of refugees and compounding this public health 

crisis, which has regional and global repercussions. 

Germs don’t need passports. We’ve seen that very clearly with 

polio and Ebola. Assad’s denial of chlorine and his use of it as a 

chemical weapon puts us all in danger. 

We know that U.N. Security Council isn’t working because of the 

Russian veto, so here’s where the U.S. working with its willing 

partners can come up with its own response. We’ve talked a little 

today about a no-fly zone. I believe at this stage the most practical 

approach is a highly specific no-fly zone. 

29

Assad may have valid uses for transporting troops to fight ISIS, 

but neither the barrel bombs nor chemical weapons are used to 

fight ISIS. They’re not used to fight any combatants. Some of you 

will have seen on the maps that these attacks are nowhere near 

ISIS, or even front lines, and so they can be stopped without impeding Assad’s or our own ability to fight ISIS. 

First of all, establishing a limited no bombing civilian zone is enforceable because the bombs are rolled out of these slow-moving 

helicopters over Northwestern Syria predominantly, easily accessible from the coast, well within reach of U.S. boats. 

Secondly, it’s pragmatic because we know Assad is responsive to 

the credible threat of force. We know he does. It’s strategic because 

it undermines one of ISIS’ most powerful tools of recruitment, that 

it alone can offer protection from Assad’s atrocities. It’s responsible 

because it mitigates the flow of refugees which gets at global security. But most importantly, creating a no bomb zone would stop the 

most important tools that are being used to slaughter and terrorize 

Syrian civilians, especially the children who are the most vulnerable, as you’ve seen, to these toxic gases, and whose small bodies 

are literally ripped apart by the hideous shrapnel filling these explosive barrel bombs. 

I’m a doctor, and I’m very familiar with death, but I have never 

seen a more obscene way to kill children. I’ve never watched so 

many suffer in such an obscene manner. Syrian children and Syrian civilians deserve protection, and the United States can provide 

it. 

I really hope this committee today will prevail upon the Obama 

administration to act to do so. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sparrow follows:]

30


95127d-1.eps
31


95127d-2.eps
32


95127d-3.eps
33


95127d-4.eps
34


95127d-5.eps
35

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Annie. I appreciate that, Dr. Sparrow. Thank you very much for your very concise arguments that 

you laid out. I thank all the witnesses for all that they’ve tried to 

do in this humanitarian crisis over the years. 

One of the questions I was going to ask you is that I know that 

the Turkish Government raised the issue of a no-fly zone when 

asked to help. Their point was there’s a humanitarian crisis in 

terms of the number of refugees from the cities coming over our 

border. It looks to me is that what primarily drives that, one of the 

issues that really drives it is the dropping of these barrel bombs 

from these MI–17 Helicopters. 

It seems to me, as you laid out that argument, Annie, that there 

is a very effective way that Turkish, Jordanian, UAE, U.S., French, 

Canadian, and British air power in the region can simply check or 

chase out of the skies these helicopters, these Russian-made helicopters that, you know, are cumbersome and slow to move, but 

they’re effective at one thing, just as those old Antonov planes that 

dropped barrel bombs are effective at doing. They’re not effective 

using against military forces, particularly, but they can be enormously effective in use against civilian populations in dropping 

things like barrel bombs on cities. And because we have a circumstance now where the blowback is such that those who are 

fighting ISIS in places like Allepo have to have this two-front war 

of battling ISIS on the ground, while looking up over their shoulder 

up to the skies to see when the Assad regime is going to again hit 

them, because his preoccupation is carrying out his effort which 

slowly drives the Syrian people, you know, over the border into 

Turkey, or into Jordan. And it would seem as though the logical 

thing to do would be to ground those helicopters and those Antonov 

planes when they do things like this; just chase them out of the 

sky and put an end to this. But for that to happen it takes a decisive decision to act, a decisive decision to say no, you won’t drop 

chemical weapons any longer. 

Anyway, your thoughts on that, Dr. Sparrow. 

Dr. SPARROW. Thank you, Chairman Royce. Indeed, this is the 

main driver of the flow of refugees. If you can put a map up, it’s 

easy to see that these are civilian areas, and our preoccupation 

with ISIS is distracting us from these systematic assaults on civilian homes, and neighborhoods, and hospitals, and schools. 

In the last month alone, there have been 35 attacks by the government on hospitals by air strikes. No one else has this air capacity. So the civilians are being driven out, the children are dying, 

they have to seek healthcare, and the doctors are dying in the hospitals. There are so many ways to die in Syria. So many of my colleagues have been forced to leave, and our best bet at mitigating 

this in so many ways, as I said, we can do it from the sea. We can 

just chase them out of the skies. 

After the sarin attack, Assad didn’t bomb anyone for 10 days because of the credible threat of use of force. That’s really significant. 

To chase them out of the skies means the creation of a humanitarian space enabling us the safe passage of humanitarian aid or 

medicines. We allow children and people to stay inside Syria, and 

this is important because no one wants to be a refugee. Turkey has 

2 million refugees already, of the 4 million refugees, at least. We 

36

don’t need more refugees, and they don’t want to be refugees. We 

can enable them to stay safely in their own country, and curb these 

obscene breaches of humanity that are such effective tools of terror 

and destruction so easily in a way that unites us all, and a very 

practical consensus that doesn’t involve shooting down or fixed 

wing aircraft. It’s just stopping those helicopters, as you described, 

which push those barrels out, just as they did in Darfur with the 

genocide of civilians. There’s nowhere to hide. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Dr. Sparrow. Dr. Tennari, your 

thoughts on what could be done in order to stop the helicopter attacks that drop the barrel bombs? 

Dr. TENNARI. The air strikes are focused mostly on hitting civilians. We haven’t seen, for example, these air strikes used in such 

focus against militant groups on the ground, or training camps, 

and so on. What we need to end these attacks is to establish a nofly zone. 

Some may argue, including in yesterday’s testimony of Ambassador Power, that implementing a no-fly zone may aid extremism. 

Although I have great respect for Ambassador Power, I do not 

agree with her on this. I live in Syria, and I never see these helicopters and airplanes used against extremists or against training 

camps, and so on. All we see is these planes and helicopters being 

used against hospitals, against schools, and against general civilian 

populations. And I don’t know how saving the lives of these civilians and ending this can in any way help extremists. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. I think my time has expired. I’ll 

go to Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I want to thank all of our witnesses. Each of 

you really gave outstanding testimony, and I’m not usually speechless, but after watching those pictures of the children dying, I’m 

speechless. I just don’t know what to say. We had an earlier hearing in this committee probably about less than a year ago where 

we had a photographer who smuggled his pictures out of Syria, and 

we saw something very similar: Bodies after bodies, hundreds, and 

hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of dead bodies obviously 

killed by gas and other horrific things. And it just really disgusts 

me that, you know, the United Nations—I’m from New York. The 

United Nations, they sit and they spin their wheels, and this type 

of murder of civilians keeps going on, and the world is silent. 

Ambassador Ford, let me ask you. Obviously, the use of chlorine 

gas is a violation, a serious allegation under the Chemical Weapons 

Convention. What should be the consequences of this violation in 

your opinion? 

Ambassador FORD. Ideally, what we would like, Congressman 

Engel, is for the persons responsible in the Syrian military chain 

of command to be held accountable. To do that, we need two things. 

We need, one, an investigation with a mandate to determine responsibility. You know, there are people up in New York, you were 

just talking about the United Nations. There are still countries in 

New York that are arguing that the Syrian opposition is responsible for chemical weapons attacks, not the Syrian Government, so 

it’s important that some kind of an investigative team have a mandate to go do that. I know Ambassador Power is trying to work that 

now. 

37

Second thing in order to hold people accountable is, we need to 

get, finally, to some kind of a settlement in Syria where officers responsible for these attacks are ultimately produced for justice. That 

will have to be part of a larger settlement. 

Mr. ENGEL. You know, last September the Organization for the 

Prohibition of Chemical Weapons concluded, as I said in my statement, ‘‘with a high degree of confidence,’’ that’s their words, that 

‘‘chlorine was used systematically and repeatedly,’’ that’s their 

words, in attacks in Northern Syria. But what puzzles me is that 

the OPCW did not attribute responsibility to the Assad regime. It 

just boggles my mind. I’d like your comment on that. 

Ambassador FORD. Exactly, Congressman. They did not have a 

mandate to determine responsibility; although, if you read between 

the lines of their report where they mentioned that the eyewitness 

accounts consistently spoke of the chemical weapons being delivered by helicopters. That, in a sense, points the finger squarely at 

the regime, even if the Organization’s report did not specifically say 

the Syrian Government did the attacks, or carried them out. 

But I think in order to get some kind of Chapter 7 action out of 

the Security Council we will actually need a very blatant statement 

that says it is, in fact, the Syrian Government that is doing this. 

Were we able to get that statement, I think it would be much more 

difficult for any country in the Security Council to use a veto. 

Mr. ENGEL. You know, President Obama was set to launch military strikes in 2013 in August. I remember that really well, against 

Syria if the regime were to use chemical weapons. Obviously, when 

they announced plans to dispose of its weapons, the administration 

backed away from its threats to strike. 

You know, when there is inaction on the part of the United 

States and other countries of the free world, I think that dictators 

and despots use that as a carte blanche to continue to do what they 

have done, and I’m afraid that we’re seeing more and more of that. 

Dr. Sparrow, do you want to add anything to your testimony? I 

thank you for your good work, and pleased that we have you as a 

witness. 

Dr. SPARROW. Thank you. I believe we still have an opportunity 

to act, and every day there are more barrel bombs. Yesterday, 21 

kids were killed with their moms at summer camp. We get tired 

almost of talking about these attacks because there are so many, 

and the brutality goes on. 

We now have an opportunity to do something that is very practical, doesn’t involve boots on the ground, and actually enables a 

consensus to mitigate this crisis in so many ways. And even to 

focus on Northwestern Syria as a starting point, it does send a 

clear message that we don’t want to tolerate this brutal breach of 

humanity any longer. And it is a radicalizing factor toward ISIS, 

so we can be strategic here in so many ways, and be clear that a 

sea-based no-fly zone doesn’t curb any efforts, Assad’s, our own, the 

coalition’s ability to fight ISIS; rather, it stops the radicalization, 

but most importantly, it does protect the civilians. This means 

Muslim kids, Christian kids, Alawites, Druze, all those children are 

still in Syria and they all deserve protection, too. 

The permanent psychological fallout of these chemical weapons 

doesn’t go away. An awful thing about bombing with gas is that 

38

you can’t hear the explosion, you can only find out about it when 

it comes with the smell. It sinks, that’s why it’s done at night. If 

you bomb a hospital, a lot of the hospitals are actually in basements, so you’re actually contaminating the hospital. There’s nowhere to hide, and you don’t know. 

Last year, he bought canisters from China, so it was easy just 

to roll canisters of liquid chlorine which vaporized under pressure, 

but this year we see this domestic production, these improvised 

chlorine bombs made out of easy ingredients like hydrochloric acid, 

potassium permanganate, so it’s so easy to make. We have to do 

something that actually stops the aerial onslaught, because that is 

the key here to really mitigating the worst humanitarian crisis. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, thank you. You know, people who say that ISIS 

is our real enemy and somehow we should look the other way with 

Assad because he’s the one standing up to ISIS should watch this 

hearing, and hopefully they change their minds. 

Chairman ROYCE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Engel, from what I’ve seen in watching 

the aerial campaign over Allepo, it is, in fact, the Assad regime. I 

think you might agree that in dropping the barrel bombs on the 

Free Syrian Army and on the civilian population in Allepo, while 

at the same time ISIS is attacking Allepo on the outskirts of the 

city he, in fact, is working hand in glove with ISIS, because his 

goal, seemingly, is to drive the civilian population out of all of these 

areas using ISIS on the ground to do it, since ISIS doesn’t attack 

his forces or rarely does, and carries out their objection or their 

focus, seemingly, on the civilian population, which is his target, as 

well. It seems to me that the Syrian people have two enemies in 

this. One is Assad, and the other is ISIS. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, that’s a very astute observation which I concur. 

And let me conclude by thanking Dr. Tennari and Mr. Habib for 

your courage in coming here, and for letting the world know what’s 

really going on in Syria. We really appreciate it and, hopefully, 

with a better future for the Syrian people, both of you will be regarded as heroes in the future for bringing your message to the 

rest of the world. We stand with you, and we hope that the Syrian 

people will soon be free of this scourge from Assad. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is the chairwoman of the 

Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

There should be no doubt that Assad is, in fact, the one responsible for the horrific humanitarian crisis, the violence, the killing 

in Syria. I think those who still say it’s the opposition, they’re looking for an excuse to be a non-actor, and a person who is enabling 

Assad to continue with these atrocities like the use of chemical 

weapons and barrel bombs against innocent civilians. 

I see no urgency, however, from the Obama administration 

aimed at pressuring Assad to go. We could be destroying and neutralizing Assad’s air capabilities, sanctioning Assad, his military officials, or any other entity, including the Russians and the Iranians, that are supporting him, and we could be focusing our efforts here in Congress to passing a substantive authorization of the 

use of military force in AUMF that not only authorizes military 

39

force against ISIL, but also against Assad, al-Nusra, and any other 

terrorist entity operating in Syria. 

Our Train and Equip Program in Syria may not be enough. According to the latest reports, only 2,000 fighters have been identified, 400 have been vetted, only 90 have begun training, and DOD 

says that the program is not aimed at attacking Assad. We’ve got 

to change our strategy in Syria because attempting to degrade and 

defeat ISIL while forcing the very ones we are training and equipping to promise, they have to promise to not attack Assad, makes 

little, if any, sense. 

In the meantime, the Assad regime has been responsible for 30 

chlorine bomb attacks from March to June, just in that time span. 

While the first chemical weapons attacks in Syria were reportedly 

with sarin gas, subsequent attacks, as we know, have all been with 

chlorine. So, I wanted to ask the panelists, first, is there any evidence of other chemical weapons being used in Syria today other 

than chlorine? And, also, in his latest book, former Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren has said that the Russian plan to remove 

chemical weapons from Syria originated with an Israeli minister. 

Ambassador Ford, I wanted to know how you would characterize 

the Obama administration’s handling of the whole situation from 

the red line, if you cross it, we’re not going to forget about that. 

We’re going to take action, and then nothing happens, to the plan 

to remove chemical weapons. And what role might Israel have 

played in all of this? And, lastly, it’s well known that Russia continues to prop up the Assad regime. What leverage do we have in 

the U.S. over Russia to persuade it to change its calculus on Assad, 

and assist in removing him from power? And what about the other 

countries in the region, what could they do, as well? Ambassador? 

Ambassador FORD. Thank you, Congresswoman. With respect to 

Ambassador Oren’s comments about the Israeli role, from where I 

sat inside the State Department in the autumn of 2013, I did not 

see a visible Israeli role, and so I just can’t comment on what he 

wrote in his book. It wasn’t visible to us at the upper working level, 

shall I say. 

With respect to what happened in 2013, in retrospect, obviously, 

laying out a red line and then not enforcing it has hurt our credibility not only inside Syria, but it certainly has not acted to deter 

Assad, and it’s probably hurt us regionally and internationally. It’s 

just a matter of record. 

I would also add that I came up to this committee with Secretary 

Kerry, and it was a hard sell here on Capitol Hill at the time, Congresswoman, so——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Some of us were there trying to help out——

Ambassador FORD. It’s not to excuse——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. But the team sort of left the 

field. 

Ambassador FORD. It’s not to excuse policy decisions, it is simply 

to say that policy decisions are hard. 

I think going forward, as I said in my opening statement, it’s 

really important to figure out how to deter Assad. I don’t think 

that he can be deterred without some kind of indirect or direct 

military action. The totality of my Syrian contacts for years have 

40

described his regime as really paying attention only to military, 

whether it be American or other, to military actions. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Just quickly comment on how you evaluate 

the Training and Equip Program that we have going in Syria now. 

Ambassador FORD. I think you’re referring to the one that’s using 

the Department of Defense Program monies. And I have two comments on it. Number one, the scale of it is not enough, even to really affect the Islamic State which deploys in Syria somewhere between 15-, 20-, 25,000 fighters. For us to inject 2-, 3-, 4-, or 5,000 

I don’t think is going to make a huge difference. And I’m not even 

talking about the logistical problems that force would have. 

But more broadly speaking, Congresswoman, I do not think we 

will be successful convincing many Syrian experienced and capable 

fighters to pledge only to fight the Islamic State and not to fight 

the Assad regime. I don’t excuse the Syrians in that, but I think 

it’s important for Americans to understand that the Assad regime 

is responsible for the deaths of maybe 150,000 to 200,000 people in 

Syria. The Islamic State is horrible, it’s brutal, it’s awful, it’s killed 

maybe 4,000 to 5,000 Syrians. So, if you’re sitting where a Syrian 

sits, the Assad regime’s brutality is worse even than that of the Islamic State, as horrible as it is. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We’ll go now to Mr. Brad Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The moral dilemma that America faces in this circumstance is far more complex than we face almost anywhere else. 

The path of righteousness is far from clear. It would help our moral 

dilemma if ISIS and Assad were secret allies, and they were acting 

as such last year, but this year the ISIS forces have engaged Assad 

and taken territory. 

It would be easier for us from a moral dilemma standpoint if 

Assad was killing people mostly with gas, but as Dr. Tennari 

points out, it is the explosive bombs that are killing most of the civilians, and causing terrible death, dismemberment. Dropping explosive bombs is the number one tactic of the United States in military actions this century. Dropping bombs with explosives is entirely legal if you’re aiming at legitimate military targets, not only 

at other combatants, but also at legitimate strategic targets like refineries. 

So then for these explosive bombs, the issue is whether Assad is 

deliberately striking civilians, and the evidence is overwhelming 

that he is. But the fact this his explosive bombs are shaped like 

barrels is not legally or morally significant. The fact that he is 

using the explosives dropped from airplanes is not illegal. The fact 

that he is targeting civilians is. 

It’s, I think, wrong to say that the United States has done nothing to help the Syrian people. Through our actions, perhaps not 

carefully scripted, Assad has been deprived of his sarin gas, his 

mustard gas, his nerve agents. If he still had these and was willing 

to use them, he would have killed hundreds of—100 times and 

more, more people than had been killed by the chlorine gas. 

Providing Atropine is, I think, not to be dismissed; though, of 

course, it is not enough to stop the death. Although, a no-fly zone 

would not stop the chlorine death, and the chlorine can be delivVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:31 Jul 29, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\061715\95127 SHIRL
41

ered on the ground, as well. So, the issue is a no-fly zone, and how 

we might tailor that. 

I would point out that the AUMF that we’re operating under, 

and which we should be revising in this committee, authorizes virtually any action against Sunni extremists, and does not authorize 

any action against the extreme Shiites, including Assad who, as the 

Ambassador points out, has killed well more than 150,000 people. 

As to us dealing with hitting Assad, and thereby depriving ISIS 

of a recruiting tool, they’ve got many recruiting tools, and if they’re 

able to seize more territory from Assad and put their flag up in this 

or that Syrian town, that will also be a recruiting tool. But I think 

the Shiite extremists are more dangerous to America, and as Ambassador Ford points out, have killed far more Middle East civilians than has ISIS, and that the question is how do we craft a nofly zone. 

Is there—but, first, Ambassador Ford, we’ve heard that the strategic reason Assad is using these tactics against civilians is to force 

them to leave. What military advantage is he trying to get? Where 

is he trying to get them to leave from? Where is he trying to get 

civilians to go to, and how does that help him? 

Ambassador FORD. Congressman, the reason the Assad regime is 

targeting civilians the way it is, is it’s literally trying to drain the 

sea that supports the Armed Opposition. So, they have been quite 

unsuccessful in defeating the Armed Opposition fighters, and they 

have turned with ever greater ferocity on the civilians that support 

them. And that’s why they’re trying to depopulate Eastern Allepo, 

for example, because that is where the Armed Opposition has one 

of its strongholds. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So, they’re aiming to depopulate all Sunni areas 

of Syria, or only particular neighborhoods where they think there’s 

strong support for the Opposition? 

Ambassador FORD. They’re, obviously, not trying to depopulate 

urban areas under regime control. But where the regime is not in 

control, Congressman, the Opposition is, it’s a national opposition, 

it’s national in size, national in scope, and so they will target almost any place from the south to the north, to the east and the 

west. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So, wherever there are civilians under Opposition 

control, Assad assumes those civilians want to be under Opposition 

control, support the Opposition, and is trying to turn them into 

residents of camps in Turkey and elsewhere. 

Ambassador FORD. Correct. If civilians in a particular area do 

not themselves fight against the Armed Opposition, then they are 

for the regime fair targets. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Good. I want to try to sneak in one more question 

with Dr. Sparrow. 

Would our no-fly zone efforts in order to prevent the use of chemical weapons need to be only against helicopters, or would we also 

need to shoot down his fixed wing aircraft? 

Dr. SPARROW. As you pointed out, Congressman, this chlorine is 

being delivered overwhelmingly from the air. It’s not like sarin 

which required sophisticated ground missiles to deliver it. It’s coming from the air, it’s being rolled out, whether in canisters or homeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:31 Jul 29, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\061715\95127 SHIRL
42

made bombs. And as I said, it’s very easy, so it is not requiring 

fixed wing aircraft. It’s the——

Mr. SHERMAN. No, no. I’m asking, if Assad’s helicopters were 

grounded, would that solve the problem, or would his fixed wing 

aircraft also deliver these barrel bombs filled with chlorine gas? 

Dr. SPARROW. Fixed aircraft will keep on killing, but these are 

civilian targets. And I say that because chemical weapons never 

kill as many as conventional weapons. In World War I, they killed 

100,000 of the 10 million dead, but they are so effective at scattering people, driving them out. In wars of attrition, they’re a beautiful tool, a very strategic tool, and they are consistent with their 

strategy. So, a fixed wing aircraft can keep on attacking ISIS in 

Deir ez-Zor, or Kobani, but this strategy will protect civilians. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So, you’re proposing just an anti-helicopter strategy? 

Dr. SPARROW. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Let’s see. Next in the queue, Mr. Ted Poe of 

Texas. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being 

here. I’m a little out of breath. 

Ambassador Ford, my questions are directed primarily to you. If 

we have time, we’ll have all of the witnesses weigh in on it. 

What is the U.S. policy regarding Assad? 

Ambassador FORD. In brief, Congressman. 

Mr. POE. Yes, in brief. 

Ambassador FORD. The United States views him, I think in his 

official policy, the President has stated it many times that he has 

no legitimacy, and he should step aside in favor of a new national 

unity transition government. The problem, very frankly, is that’s a 

nice strategy, but there are no tactics for making that happen. 

Mr. POE. Let me ask you about the tactics. Going all the way 

back to Gerald Ford, reiterated by Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, 

President Bush, all issued statements or Executive Orders regarding the fact that the United States does not assassinate heads of 

state. Is that generally our policy? 

Ambassador FORD. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. POE. Now, in 2011, NATO bombed the house where Gaddafi 

was staying but missed him, and then later in October he was 

killed. I’m not sure we know who actually was responsible for that, 

but—so, why doesn’t the United States, if Assad is so bad, he’s 

killed 200,000 of his own people, and put that in perspective. Americans lost 400,000 in World War II killed, military, so that’s a lot 

of folks, 200,000. Why don’t we just assassinate him? And then we 

get rid of him; he’s gone, he’s the bad guy, he’s gone. But why don’t 

we do that? 

Ambassador FORD. As you said, Congressman, it’s not our policy 

to assassinate people. With respect to Libya, there was a United 

Nations Security Council resolution which authorized Chapter 7 action. We don’t have that in Syria. 

Mr. POE. Okay. 

Ambassador FORD. Which has been a factor in the administration’s considerations. I think going forward, while I don’t advocate 

assassinating President——

43

Mr. POE. And I’m not saying we should, either. I’m just asking 

the question. 

Ambassador FORD. Yes. But I think in going forward, to the extent that the United States remains committed only to operating 

under Chapter 7 approved by the Security Council, the United 

States will almost certainly not be able to influence events on the 

ground in Syria. And that, in turn, poses risks to our own national 

security. 

Mr. POE. Okay. Why hasn’t OPCW said who’s responsible for the 

chemical attacks? Why haven’t they done that? 

Ambassador FORD. Their mandate was only to (a) oversee the 

dismantling of the declared Syrian chemical weapons program, and 

(2) to investigate in an intrusive manner where other sites that 

were not declared but might be potential chemical weapons facilities. And, in fact, they discovered four, but they never had a mandate. They never—let me say that again. They never had a mandate to determine who was responsible for using chemical weapons. 

Mr. POE. All right. Let me reclaim my time. Do they have the 

ability to say who is responsible right now? Could they say who is 

responsible, or would they say we don’t know? 

Ambassador FORD. If they were here today, Congressman, they 

would say they don’t know. 

Mr. POE. They don’t. 

Ambassador FORD. Because they have no mandate to label anyone responsible. 

Mr. POE. So, if we gave them a mandate to say who is responsible, and they said Assad was responsible, then technically the 

U.N. could weigh in on this? 

Ambassador FORD. Correct. 

Mr. POE. Okay. 

Ambassador FORD. And it may be that, ultimately, it’ll be impossible to get the OPCW that mandate, Congressman, and so I think 

this is one of the things being discussed in New York is, is there 

another way to get an investigative team with that mandate. 

Mr. POE. All right. Thank you, Ambassador. Reclaiming my time. 

Let’s go back to Assad; removing Assad. I’m not saying we ought 

to assassinate him. Just the U.S. policy is not to get rid of him. But 

let’s say he is gone tomorrow, he’s out of town, he’s gone. Would 

that result in chaos, turmoil, or tranquility in Syria, or pick a different word? 

Ambassador FORD. It could be either one. It is possible that his 

departure would facilitate getting to the national political negotiation that I talked about, because he has refused, he has refused to 

negotiate, and his instructions to his delegation in Geneva 15 

months ago was not to negotiate. However, that will require some 

pressure from us on the Armed Opposition——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Ambassador. 

Ambassador FORD [continuing]. Be willing to negotiate. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Judge Poe. 

Mr. POE. I’d like to ask one question. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Absolutely. 

Mr. POE. Isn’t ISIS just as bad as Assad if they were in control? 

Ambassador FORD. In some ways the Islamic State is even worse, 

but they will not be in control of Syria, even if Assad does fall. 

44

Mr. POE. Thank you. 

Ambassador FORD. They will not——

Mr. POE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. We’ll turn to Mr. Sires of New 

Jersey. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here 

today. This is a very moving hearing but, you know, I’m so conflicted with some of these decisions that we have to make in the 

Congress. 

First of all, you know, the conflict in Syria has left us with three 

main groups, Assad’s brutal force, ISIL, a fractured group consisting of some modern militia, some al-Qaeda affiliates. You know, 

I don’t know where we could turn and not make the situation 

worse. 

I really don’t think that there is a military solution to this. And 

I understand that instituting a no-fly zone may help, but I don’t 

know if us getting involved would make it better. I mean, I think 

we screwed up Iraq. I mean, look at the situation in Iraq. And 

every time I go to these veterans’ events and I see our young men 

missing a limb, missing legs, I mean, I really don’t know I could 

ever vote to send troops in some of these places, because the rest 

of the Arab world is just sitting by and watching this go on. 

Where’s the rest of the world? Why must we send our young people 

into this battle, spend our money, and at the end they hate us for 

it? So, where’s the rest of the world? I mean, where is the rest of 

the Arab world? 

They are their children. I mean, the Turks just look around and 

see people getting killed. They don’t care. They don’t even let people in through their border. So, can anybody tell me how we’re 

going to make this better without a political solution to this? 

Ambassador, you want to start? I mean, you could try. 

Ambassador FORD. I’d be delighted to. I’d be delighted to, Congressman. 

I agree with you, there is no military solution. There has to be 

a national political negotiation; otherwise, Syria will fragment into 

something like Somalia. But how do you get to the political solution? How do you get there? 

The only way is to put more military pressure on the side that 

won’t negotiate, which is Assad. Just like Richard Holbrooke in the 

Balkans used limited judicious amounts of NATO air strikes to get 

Milosevic to go to the table at Dayton; something like that has to 

be done with Assad. 

Mr. SIRES. But I think the situation is a little more complicated. 

Ambassador FORD. The Balkans were pretty complicated, too, 

Congressman. So, if I may continue, a no-fly zone, for example, it’s 

not the only thing that would help with this, but a no-fly zone, for 

example, if properly negotiated out with regional countries and 

used as part of an effort, as part of an effort to get to the political 

negotiation could be very effective. It would both help save civilian 

lives, but it could be used as leverage to get Assad to the table, and 

to get the Armed Opposition to negotiate and engage seriously 

when they go to the table. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Habib, you want to just—I know you——

Mr. HABIB. Thank you, sir. 

45

Well, first of all, I just want to say that the Syrian people did 

not ever ask for boots on the ground from the United States or 

from other countries. What we asked for does not put any of the 

American soldiers at risk; just provide protection for the Syrian 

people. 

Inaction from the international community will lead to more 

complexity, and it will cause more threats on the international security, in general. If Iran wins this war, this will not be in the interest of the United States or the international community. And if 

ISIS wins, or any radical group wins, of course, that will threaten 

the international security. 

What we ask for is to give a chance for the moderate opposition 

to be able to provide an alternative for the people inside Syria, and 

for the public in general. 

Mr. SIRES. Okay, Dr. Tennari. 

Dr. TENNARI. The biggest producer and biggest magnet of terrorism in Syria is Bashar al-Assad. 

Mr. SIRES. Oh, I don’t question——

Dr. TENNARI. Bashar al-Assad has also brought to Syria the 

gains of Hezbollah, the gains of Irani and Shiite extremist militias, 

and others that have come into our country from terrorist groups. 

And this is what also helped cause other groups that also came out, 

terrorist organizations that also came out in Syria. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. We’ll let him finish and then move on. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No, go ahead. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. He had something else to say. 

Dr. TENNARI. The cost of any intervention for the United States 

back in 2011–2012 is obviously much less costly for the United 

States then. The current situation, the chaos that’s there is only 

going to spread and become worse, and that’s going to force the 

United States at some point to intervene at a much more—even 

more complex situation. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. We will now go to Mr. Issa of California. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ambassador, let me couch this question without trying to seem 

overly glib. Looking at Syria right now, Bashar Assad is a failed 

leader, failed his people before the civil war, continues to fail to 

even respect human rights. We can all agree that that’s the best 

you can say. But with about 28 million Syrians, plus or minus, and 

about half of them already displaced either in the country or outside the country, correct, and then of the remaining call it 18 million or less that are theoretically still in their homes, a big chunk, 

let’s call it 25 percent either support Bashar Assad, or at least docile in any opposition. 

Then you have another chunk of the country, more than half by 

some estimates, are in the hands of ISIS where the vast majority 

either are docile and just want to continue their lives or, in fact, 

support ISIS. 

46

In that environment, when we are both against Assad and 

against ISIS, what are our numbers? How many numbers can we 

actually say are people who are ready to engage in an active effort 

sufficient to displace both of these despicable groups? 

Ambassador FORD. It’s important to understand here, Congressman, that this effort to unseat Assad has been going on 4 years 

now, and is actually getting stronger, not weaker. So, you just look 

at the situation on the ground, and that the regime has lost a second Provincial capital. 

Mr. ISSA. But they’ve lost it to ISIS. 

Ambassador FORD. No, they did not. They lost it to a group 

called Jaysh al Fateh, and to other sector armed groups fighting 

from the north and the south. 

Mr. ISSA. Who coordinate——

Ambassador FORD. They did not lose it to the Islamic State. 

Mr. ISSA. But they coordinate their opposition by regions, the 

same as Hezbollah. Today, the Lebanese armed forces fights in one 

zone, Hezbollah fights in another zone, they deconflict their zones 

to the extent that they are keeping Lebanon outside of the direct 

war. 

The question I have for you is, what is our path to displace both 

of them, or are we really having this hearing to talk about the current use of chemical weapons, and atrocities by Assad while, in 

fact, the effort to displace him is really in name only. And the reality is, is that we are fighting against ISIS while claiming that we 

want regime change, and knowing full well that regime change 

today, if Assad were to fall, ISIS would dominate the political scene 

more in Syria than Hezbollah ever has in Lebanon. 

Ambassador FORD. Two comments on that, Congressman. Number one, the administration’s priority clearly is Iraq, not Syria. 

And, clearly, even in Iraq it is to fight the Islamic State. To the 

extent the administration is engaged much on Syria right now, it’s 

with our air campaign against the Islamic State, an air campaign 

which, as best I can tell, the criteria for victory are not clear, and 

the duration of the mission is very unclear. That’s my first comment. 

Second, I disagree vehemently that were Assad to go, the Islamic 

State would dominate Syria. The total number of people who are 

fighting the Islamic State right now both in the regime and among 

moderates in the Free Syrian Army outnumbers the Islamic State. 

And it is important to note, Congressman, that although the Islamic State has been on attack for months up around Allepo, it is 

actually being pushed back. It is not advancing. Let me say that 

again. It is being pushed back. And those are not people who are 

getting any help from the United States. And the Islamic State has 

also suffered losses at the hands of Syrian Kurds, so I do not think 

the Islamic State would dominate Syria. 

Mr. ISSA. Ambassador, my time is just about expired. I appreciate your opinion. The reality is, Hezbollah doesn’t control the majority of Lebanon either, but they dominate the politics of Lebanon, 

undoubtedly. 

Do any of you see a political solution in Syria since the military 

solution seems to be a multi group, essentially becoming a civil war 

with multiple groups fighting multiple groups? 

47

Ambassador FORD. That’s an excellent question. 

Mr. ISSA. And that is for anyone on the panel. Do any of you see 

a political solution? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Just one to answer. His time is up. One. 

Mr. ISSA. I’ll take that as no. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. And now we turn to 

Mr. Deutch, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Middle 

East and North Africa. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. To our witnesses 

here today, thanks for your tireless humanitarian work, and for 

being here today to share some of the horrors that you’ve witnessed 

firsthand. 

The medical personnel and the humanitarian workers who are 

the first responders risk their lives in Syria every day running toward explosions instead of away from them, and they deserve our 

gratitude and support. 

Ambassador Ford, welcome back. Thank you for your years of 

service to this country. 

As we have heard already today, the Assad regime has continued 

its horrific use of chemical weapons in direct violation of the OPCW 

agreement; yet, the international community remains paralyzed 

with inaction. The fact that whether or not chlorine gas is a chemical weapon is even part of this conversation is baffling to me. 

When chlorine gas is put in a barrel bomb and dropped from the 

sky on civilians, then dropped again when rescue workers have 

reached the scene, it is a weapon of mass destruction. And the fact 

that the international bodies do not assign blame for these attacks 

by the Assad regime is a failure of the system. 

The regime is the only entity with air power, the only one capable of dropping barrel bombs, and at this point continued inaction 

by the international community is unacceptable. 

Just this morning there were reports of elephant rockets being 

dropped on civilians. These are bombs, if I understand it correctly, 

with rocket motors attached to them to cause greater destruction, 

despite making them far more inaccurate. And while I’m glad that 

Secretary Kerry acknowledged yesterday that these attacks by 

Assad cannot continue, I’m just not sure that simply asking the 

Russians to relay this message is enough. 

Russia can’t continue to block action against the barbaric use of 

chemical weapons at the Security Council. This is horrid at this 

point, and we’ve been talking about it for a long time, but today’s 

hearing is about the use of chemical weapons, and we have to be 

prepared to stand up and acknowledge it, and respond to it. 

Now, Dr. Tennari, chlorine gas is notorious for the psychological 

terror that its deployment, or threat of deployment, inflicts upon 

populations. And the Assad regime also possesses and uses weapons which are significantly more efficient at killing on a massive 

scale. Dr. Sparrow, you talked about this. Why do you think that 

the regime continues to use chlorine as a weapon in violation of 

law, and what affect does that have on the communities that are 

under siege? 

Dr. SPARROW. As I said—thank you. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Dr. Sparrow, can we have just Dr. Tennari answer 

first, and then I’ll turn to you. 

48

Dr. SPARROW. Sorry. 

Mr. DEUTCH. That’s okay. No, thank you. 

Dr. TENNARI. The Assad regime uses chlorine gas specifically to 

displace people from their areas, specifically against the areas that 

are under Opposition control, so to help strike at the popular support of the Opposition. Assad’s troops and his strategy, even whenever they come into a specific area, they always write down on the 

walls, ‘‘Either Assad or no one else—either Assad or we burn down 

the whole country.’’ And this is the strategy behind using chlorine 

barrel bombs, is that it’s either be under Assad control or no one 

is there, and so he uses that to displace populations. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Dr. Sparrow. Thank you, Dr. Tennari. 

Dr. SPARROW. Together the barrel bombs and the chlorine are 

completely consistent with this very deliberate strategy of targeting 

civilians and hospitals. It is a classic strategy of war, as described. 

March 16th, the chlorine attacks recommenced; 28th of March, 

Idlib fell from the Government, the City of Idlib was taken by coordinated action by the Opposition. I was there. The very next day, 

the government retaliates by taking out the National Hospital in 

Idlib and the Red Crescent Hospital, including the children’s ward 

in the National Hospital. 

It’s a very swift retaliation. It drives people quickly as Tennari 

described, forces them to move, so attacking them together with destroying the infrastructure and creating the panic and the fear 

really puts people out of action very effectively. And this is a war 

of attrition. Two years ago Eastern Ghouta had a population of 1 

million and several hundred doctors. Today, Ghouta has 1⁄5 million 

and it has 50 doctors left. In DC, you have about 600,000, and almost 7,000 doctors. This is why it’s not a political solution, but it 

is a mitigation of this misery and helps stop the escalation. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Dr. Sparrow, thank you. Madam Chairman, if our 

sensibilities are shocked by what we’ve heard today and what we’ve 

seen in these videos, then there is just no question that there is 

an obligation to respond in some way. And I appreciate very much 

the opportunity to have this hearing today to discuss this further, 

and I yield back my time. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Deutch. And now 

we turn to Mr. Donovan of New York. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of 

quick questions. 

First, Doctor, is air drops the only method that’s effective for the 

use of this chlorine gas? 

Dr. SPARROW. Yes. Last year canisters of liquid gas just vaporized, this year improvised chlorine bombs, and it’s much more effective. It’s very difficult to deliver chlorine in this way from the 

ground. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Okay. 

Dr. SPARROW. It’s not like sarin. So, yes, we are only seeing it 

in air drops. 

MR. DONOVAN. Ambassador, do the Syrians have the capability 

to manufacture helicopters themselves, or are outside forces supplying them with these vehicles to drop the chlorine? 

Ambassador FORD. The helicopters that the Syrian Government 

uses are Russian, and the spare parts are all Russian, too. 

49

Mr. DONOVAN. Okay. And my final question, if a no-fly zone was 

imposed, Ambassador, would we have to be the enforcer, the 

United States, or are there other countries in the region that would 

enforce the no-fly zone? 

Ambassador FORD. Countries in the region, Congressman, have 

been asking us to do a no-fly zone for a long time. They’re already 

participating with us in air operations in Syria against the Islamic 

State, and I have no doubt that a number of those same countries 

would join us if we were to expand the mission to be a no-fly zone 

over specific designated areas in Syria. We would certainly have 

other countries join us. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Donovan. Mr. Cicilline of 

Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you to our 

witnesses for being here, and thank you to the chairman and Ranking Member for convening this hearing. 

For a regime and a dictator prepared to engage in this kind of 

horrific and depraved slaughter of its own people, and particularly 

of children, and the destruction of hospitals and health care facilities, the significance of removing the other chemical weapons, mustard gas and sarin, I think is significant. One can only begin to 

imagine what Assad or the regime would be capable of if they had 

access to those weapons. 

But with respect to our response to these chemical weapons, it 

seems as if, Ambassador Ford, you’re suggesting that some military 

action will create some conditions for a political solution, that military solution is not—and I think Dr. Sparrow makes the same recommendation. And in your written testimony you speak about the 

cruel irony of the denial of chlorine and what it has caused in 

neighborhoods in Syria, and really serious, grave consequences of 

hepatitis, typhoid, polio outbreaks, and very, very serious diseases. 

And now chlorine is being used and dispensed in the cruelest way, 

and the most devastating way. And the cruel irony of this is almost 

hard to imagine. 

But I want to just press you on the solution. Dr. Sparrow says 

a no-fly zone in civilian areas that would protect, obviously, or prevent the bombing, use of barrel bombs that dispenses chlorine. And 

she also concludes in her written testimony that there is strong 

reason to believe that Assad’s barrel bombing of civilians would 

quickly stop if a credible threat of military retaliation were made. 

And that this kind of a no-fly zone in this limited way is not militarily complicated, but a matter of political will. So, I’d like, Ambassador Ford, for you to comment on that. Do you agree with that 

assessment that it should be a no-fly zone, it should be narrowly 

construed, and that it’s not militarily complicated, it’s a matter of 

political will, and that it will likely cause Assad and the Assad regime to stop the use of chemical weapons? Because it was very persuasive to me, I should say. 

Ambassador FORD. Congressman, first of all, I’d just like to say 

I spent 5 years in Iraq trying to help stand up an Iraqi Government so we could get our forces out, so I don’t take lightly asking 

for the deployment of American forces or an expansion of an existVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:31 Jul 29, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\061715\95127 SHIRL
50

ing mission that we already have in Syria. But militarily, it’s doable. 

I think a different question is how long would it go on? It went 

on 12 years in Iraq. We had a no-fly zone over Iraq for 12 years. 

So, the answer to that is, I can’t give you a specific time mission, 

and that makes me uncomfortable. But I can only say that it will 

help if done properly, and if negotiated properly with the regional 

states, and the Syrian Opposition, it could help get us over the 

hump and to a negotiating table where we can get, finally, a national political settlement. Right now, we are going nowhere, nowhere toward a national political settlement. In fact, the opposite, 

the country is fragmenting, and that will enable the Islamic State 

and the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra to have areas they control out 

into the medium and long term, Congressman. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Ambassador, you sounded as if you were trying 

to make another point, and there wasn’t enough time when one of 

my colleagues was questioning you. You said some pressure from 

us to negotiate, and ISIS will not be in charge of Syria. Would you 

speak a little more about that? 

Ambassador FORD. Certainly. The Islamic State is not the majority of the Syrian Opposition. It is one element fighting Assad, and 

sometimes it even cooperates with Assad in a very byzantine way. 

Let’s not forget that before Islam, the Byzantines controlled Syria, 

so they carried over some of the tricky politics. 

Were Assad to go tomorrow or the next day, there would be a 

competition for power in Damascus and in all parts of Syria, and 

nowhere has the Islamic State ever prevailed over the more moderate elements of the Opposition, not in Allepo, not with the Syrian 

Kurds, if you’ve been reading the news about the gains that the 

Syrian Kurds have made, and down in the south, as well. In all of 

those places, the Islamic State’s attacks have been blunted. 

The real progress the Islamic State has made to the extent it’s 

made progress in Syria, is in places where it was fighting the regime, like Palmyra. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. I thank you again, Madam Chair, and 

I associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Deutch, that in the face of this evidence, that we 

have a responsibility to do something, and the world is watching. 

And I thank, again, the witnesses for being here to share their testimony. With that, I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. Mr. Duncan of South 

Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thought the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch’s comments were apropos, too. 

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is 

worth a billion words, in my opinion. That video that you showed 

this morning was very, very compelling. It was moving to me emotionally. It needs to be shown all across America. 

Delving into this no-fly zone idea, which I am apt to support 

based on testimony today, and the comments from my colleagues, 

and the questions they asked. But delving into it, I realized that 

from 1992 to 1999, that DOD estimated that the U.S. and its allies 

flew over 200,000 sorties in Iraq. They were operating under what 

they believed to be a U.N. Security Council Resolution 688, but 

51

Secretary General Ghali said that the no-fly zone was illegal under 

688. So, I ask, Ambassador, is there a Security Council resolution 

now for Syria that would cover a no-fly zone? 

Ambassador FORD. I think that’s one of the difficulties, Congressman. I do not believe there is a Security Council resolution. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Would you agree with me that Russia would probably, being the benefactor of Assad, probably veto any Security 

Council resolution for a no-fly zone? 

Ambassador FORD. They have indicated that consistently. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, that’s speculation, and so I think they would, 

as well. So, how do we operate a no-fly zone legally in international 

law getting the participation of the U.N. Security Council? 

Ambassador FORD. The argument is going to have to be made, 

Congressman, that this falls under the acknowledged responsibility 

to protect, which as a principle has been acknowledged by the 

United Nations, but has not been applied in this way. The irony 

of this is that the international law strictly interpreted actually 

gives Assad full reign to kill like this; even though he’s committing 

war crimes in the process. 

Mr. DUNCAN. That’s amazing. 

Ambassador FORD. Yes, it is. I must say, I was surprised when 

I understood this myself. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thanks for sharing that. We’ve operated in defiance of international or U.N. Security Council resolutions in the 

past, and so what are the practical implications for creating a nofly zone in your opinion? 

Ambassador FORD. I think it has to be understood, not just as 

a way to protect Syrian civilians, as laudable and as important as 

that is, but because it’s a major commitment, and——

Mr. DUNCAN. From regional allies, I guess, is what you’re saying? 

Ambassador FORD. That it has to be used also as a tool to get 

to a political settlement in Syria so that it doesn’t last 12 years like 

the one in Iraq did. And so we will have to negotiate the terms of 

it with regional states that are also supporting the Opposition so 

that they back a political settlement, and with the Syrian Opposition so that it, too, will negotiate seriously. And then we have to 

turn to the Russians and say this is not to overthrow Assad, this 

is to get to the negotiating table, and to stop the murder of civilians. 

Mr. DUNCAN. You know, in Iraq with the no-fly zones, we were 

basically stopping the Saddam Hussein regime from flying in two 

regions. The dynamics in Syria are much greater because we do 

have the Assad regime attacking its own citizens. There’s no doubt 

in my mind about who’s responsible, but we also have ISIS, and 

we have a lot of other factions that are in-fighting, but also fighting 

Assad, so the dynamics are completely different. 

I guess most of us would be concerned that a no-fly zone would 

possibly lead to an escalation of U.S. involvement in Syria because 

of the different factions. You know, you have ISIS take a manpad 

acquired from Lybia, and shoot down an American F–18. That’s an 

escalation. And the rules of engagement currently against ISIS and 

Iraq keeps—there are many sorties flown every day that not a single bomb is loose because of the rules of engagement and waiting 

for clearance from some intelligence organization and up the chain 

52

of command, and so I’m really concerned about how this whole nofly zone would actually operate. I think there’s a lot of unanswered 

questions. But don’t let that concern give you any doubt about my 

commitment to try to make this work for a no-fly zone, because I 

do see how it would help the Syrian people. Yes, sir? 

Ambassador FORD. One comment, Congressman. Having worked 

with our military in Iraq for almost 5 years, I have huge respect 

for what they do, and the risks that they take. They’re already at 

risk of a surface-to-air missile hitting one of our pilots in an operation against the Islamic State. That risk already exists, and in 

fact it’s been going on now for 9 months. 

Mr. DUNCAN. In Western Iraq or in Syria? 

Ambassador FORD. No, in Syria. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. 

Ambassador FORD. We are bombing in Syria regularly. What concerns me is that what we have now does not protect civilians, and 

it’s a military mission of unlimited duration. Nobody can tell us 

when it’s going to end. It does not help get to a settlement of the 

Syria crisis. It’s just out there hitting the Islamic State, but it 

doesn’t lead to anything to resolve the fundamental conflict that is 

helping Islamic State recruit. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Ambassador. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Keating of Massachusetts. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I’d suggest in response to that question, perhaps there’s other 

reasons we’re targeting in Syria for other groups working there, as 

well, so there’s a reason. But I’m going to ask you to do something 

difficult. I’m going to ask you to try and get in the head of President Putin for a second, because to me, the way I view the situation, short term certainly we’ve discussed what he’s done in the Security Council and things, but in the long term, Assad being there 

is not in Russia’s self-interest. They’ve had a natural relationship 

with Syria, and his continuation, you know, as a leader there will 

hurt them, you know, in the short run because it will endanger the 

ability to go on with the administration after he leaves. And I do 

think he’s in a more precarious situation than he was before. I do 

think he—one way or another, he’ll be leaving there before long. 

What can Russia do in that instance, even behind the scenes, to 

assist in his removal? What are their options should they choose 

to do so, because I think they have self-interest at stake here in 

removing him, or having him go? Ambassador, I guess you’re the 

best person in this regard. 

Ambassador FORD. Well, I think the Russian President views 

Syria as an ally, and so they obviously have interests and we have 

to understand that. I think in any kind of action where we increase 

assistance to the Syrian Armed Opposition to help stop these air 

attacks, or we undertake ourselves as part of a coalition direct military action, I think it will be important to reach out to the Russians. I think it would be very useful in terms of getting to the political negotiation I was talking about, Congressman, to have some 

kind of a regional contact group, and have that formalized so that 

53

we’re in a room talking with the Russians, and also with Turkey, 

and Saudi Arabia. And I’m going to say it, and Iran, because all 

of those countries are going to have to work together to help resolve the Syrian crisis. They all have their clients in this conflict. 

So, the things that Russia could do, Congressman, would be at the 

simplest level to stop sending spare parts to these helicopters and 

these aircraft. That would be the simplest thing, and they can do 

that quietly. They don’t need to make any announcements. They 

need not lose face in doing that. It’s simply a way of putting pressure on the regime to stop using these attacks against civilians. 

They could limit financing. They could limit other arms shipments. They send a lot of arms into Syria. The Syrian Army is basically equipped by the Russians, and they can also quietly behind 

the scenes press the regime to go to the negotiating table, which 

also is important. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, do you agree with the premise that, at least 

the way I view it, that Assad is definitely—his presence there is 

not in Russia’s long term interest in the region there? And any one 

of the other witnesses that might want to comment on that, I’d welcome that testimony. 

Dr. SPARROW. May I just quickly say that Russia and Putin also 

recognize that chemical weapons used against civilians plumb the 

depths, plumb new depths of inhumanity, and it’s actually easier 

to get Russia to agree to a no-fly zone that protects civilians, as it 

also is with the Iraqi Prime Minister, with whom I’ve also had this 

conversation. We can get consensus around stopping the civilian 

slaughter which then helps those who are currently even supporting the Assad regime to achieve consensus around this no-fly 

zone and lead toward a political solution. It’s helpful for everybody. 

Mr. KEATING. Okay. Any of the other witnesses wish to comment 

on Russia’s self-interest here in having Assad gone? 

Dr. TENNARI. The long term interest of Russia would be in having a decent relationship with the Syrian people, and the Syrian 

people have made the decision that they no longer want to be ruled 

by Bashar al-Assad. 

The presence of Assad in power has caused enormous chaos, and 

this chaos is added, and it’s expanded on a daily basis. Getting 

Assad away from the front will open the road to a political solution. 

It will open the door for the Syrians to sit at the negotiation table 

and find a political solution to this crisis. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Keating. Dr. Yoho 

of Florida. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate everybody 

being here today. 

I would like to just mention that we are introducing a resolution 

condemning the use of toxic chemicals as weapons in the Syrian 

Arab Republic, including chlorine substances along with a strong 

recommendation to the international community requesting no-fly 

zones, including helicopters. This has gone on way too long. It’s 

something that needs to stop, and I’m kind of outraged that the 

world community and the U.N. Security Council has not acted on 

this sooner. I mean, how many times do we have to repeat history 

54

with atrocity, after atrocity, after atrocity. This is the 21st century. 

We need to tighten up as a population or people. 

Ambassador Ford, I want to direct—I’ve just got a comment or 

a question. Back in March, the end of March 2011, you stated that 

Assad is no Gaddafi. There is little likelihood of mass atrocities. 

The Syrian regime will answer challenges aggressively, but will try 

to minimize the use of lethal force. How did we miss that so wrongly? 

Ambassador FORD. At the time, Congressman, in my discussions 

with the Syrian officials, including at the Presidency, including top 

advisors to Assad, they were telling me that they wanted a dialogue, and they made a few tentative steps toward a dialogue. They 

did release several prominent political prisoners, including 

Haitham al-Malah, and Riad Seif who had been imprisoned for 

years. It was my mistake of judgment, but I want you to understand that context. 

Mr. YOHO. All right. We were talking of Libya at the time going 

in, doing a no-fly zone. And I hear a lot of no-fly zones, you know, 

we should do a no-fly zone. I just want to remind everybody a nofly zone, number one, if we do that, is an act of war. We’re attacking a sovereign nation that has not attacked us. They are not a direct threat to the United States of America. It is an act of war. A 

no-fly zone does not prevent helicopters from flying. A no-fly zone 

didn’t prevent Saddam Hussein from slaughtering his own people 

when we had a no-fly zone there. A no-fly zone is not a solution, 

it’s a military operation. Yes, it can be used to put more pressure 

on the Assad regime, but it is not an answer to the problem. 

We did that in Libya, and Senator Cornyn out of Texas said the 

mission in Libya was unclear, and it was an international no-fly 

zone. And I think there was around 18 to 20 countries, and when 

it came time to participate, half of those countries didn’t show up. 

The Americans had to do most of the lifting. We had 19 warships 

in there, 18,000 troops committed. The first 11 days cost $550 million, and then $40 million a month after that. And money is not 

the issue here. We’re talking about human life, and the dignity of 

life, and stability in that area. But NATO was unable to finish the 

job on its own, and there was no plan post-Gaddafi. And now Libya 

is becoming the hotbed for ISIS. It’s becoming the home base for 

ISIS. 

What are we doing to prevent a repeat of that? If we were to do 

this and Assad falls, what is going to be replaced there, and is it 

going to be worse, because we saw al-Qaeda fall. We saw it, you 

know, almost beat down, and then out of that came ISIS. It’s alQaeda Part 2. I’m not ready for Part 3. Ambassador Ford, if you’d 

comment on that. 

Ambassador FORD. You raise valid questions. My response to 

that is that after Gaddafi fell, there was not a strong plan in place 

for the transition government in Libya to establish a monopoly of 

force. The militias were not disarmed. 

Whatever is negotiated for Syria, and I emphasize the word ‘‘negotiation,’’ I do not think it is possible to have a military solution 

in Syria, certainly not any time soon. Those negotiations between 

the government and the Syrian Opposition must include negotiations about how security will be handled, and how the government, 

55

ultimately, will have the monopoly of force, because that government will have to fight the extremists of al-Qaeda and the Islamic 

State. And that will have to be one of the things that comes out 

of the negotiation. 

Mr. YOHO. Well, I would hope before we go into a no-fly zone we 

have a clear, concise strategy of what happens post-Assad? What 

happens? Who’s going to be there? Who’s going to be standing up 

protecting the Syrian people, who in Syria is going to do that, and 

where is that support going to come from on an international 

basis? And you talked about Russia, you know, they could stop 

sending parts. My experience and what I found out especially with 

the meeting today is Russia will not support Assad, because Assad 

is suppressing his people. And Putin’s number one fear is for an 

uprising in a zone area with people, and you could see that happening in Ukraine with the beginning of the uprising there. And 

Putin is deathly afraid of that, so if he’s supporting Assad, his people in Russia are saying you know what, we don’t want to go 

against this guy. And until the world community comes together, 

until America leads, and we have lost our way when we draw red 

lines and we back off, when we ask for regime change and we back 

off, and we need to say what we mean, and mean what we say, and 

we need to back that up with action. And we need to have the courage, and we need to have the big stick; but, more importantly, people need to know we’re going to use that. And I hope in the future 

we progress down those avenues. Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. Thank you, Dr. Yoho. 

Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank the witnesses 

and the other folks for being here. 

I just want to start out with a statement regarding one of my colleagues from the other side that said that we screwed up Iraq. It 

is this member’s opinion that there are a few folks in this town 

that screwed up Iraq, but it certainly wasn’t the military, and it 

wasn’t the Congress, either. Iraq was a stable place not too long 

ago, and that’s at the feet of a couple of individuals in this town, 

in my opinion. 

With that having been said, Ambassador Ford, you stated earlier 

today that the events in Syria are a national security issue, and 

I tend to agree with you, but we don’t have this Chapter 7 situation resolved. And so, I think you’re advocating for it, so I just 

want to be clear and have your remarks clarified, that in spite of 

a lack of Chapter 7 authority, that we should—the United States 

should take some action. Is that—some action. Right? 

Ambassador FORD. Yes. I don’t think we have to have a no-fly 

zone. I certainly see advantages to a no-fly zone, but if that’s just 

too big a stretch, if that’s just too difficult in Washington to do, 

then at least I would like to see us help the Syrian Armed Opposition deter and interdict these attacks. And whether that be by giving them standoff mortars and rockets so they can hit the airfields 

from which the helicopters take off, whether that be radar so they 

can detect——

Mr. PERRY. So, you’re not wed to the no-fly zone. 

Ambassador FORD. No. 

Mr. PERRY. But that is a——

56

Ambassador FORD. I see advantages to it, but I know there’s a 

lot of opposition in Washington. 

Mr. PERRY. Let me ask you this. The Syrian Government has not 

been officially determined responsible for the chlorine gas attacks, 

and that’s kind of the impetus for much of this discussion, right, 

the weapons of mass destruction, the chemical weapons, 

weaponized chlorine. 

What are we doing? What’s the administration, what’s the 

United States doing about pursuing a unilateral strategy to determine official responsibility? Are we doing anything? Should we be 

doing anything? Because we can’t get it through the U.N., right? 

Russia is going to stand in the way. So, if that’s the case, and we’re 

left with arming some faction in Syria, or a no-fly zone, would it 

be smart and would it be possible to pursue a way to degrade 

Assad’s use of his air force via lack of parts and maintenance provisions from Russia? But, you know, we’ve got to get to that. And it 

seems to me in this morass of very difficult circumstances, that 

that is something that should and could be pursued, and it gets us 

to where we want to be without putting lives in peril of the United 

States, and everything else, and jeopardy that goes with that. 

Ambassador FORD. If I understand the administration’s policy, 

Congressman, they are trying to work this now in New York and 

trying to get Russian buy-in for an investigative team of some kind 

to go and determine responsibility. I think the negotiations with 

the Russians would be somewhat easier if the Russians understood 

that failing U.N. Security Council agreement, the United States is 

prepared to work with a coalition of like-minded countries to act 

itself; whether that be in terms of a no-fly zone, or if that’s too 

much heavy lifting, then at least to provide people, Syrians on the 

ground the ability to interdict those air strikes. 

Mr. PERRY. Do you know how long that process has been going 

on? I think if I’m Russia, if I’m Putin, I want to play out the clock. 

I want Assad to stay there as long as he can. If he’s imperiled a 

little bit or a lot, so what? I keep my Navy base there, and 

everybody’s happy. Right? 

Ambassador FORD. I think this has been in play for at least 2 

months now, and I think it goes faster if the Russians understand 

that we ourselves are prepared to operate with a small coalition of 

like-minded countries——

Mr. PERRY. Can you tell me who the small coalition of the likeminded would be? 

Ambassador FORD. Oh, it would include Turkey, Jordan, Saudi 

Arabia, Qatar, France, probably the British, at least those, and I 

would think——

Mr. PERRY. That would be willing to work in a no-fly zone capacity? 

Ambassador FORD. Yes. 

Mr. PERRY. Those—who would run such a thing? 

Ambassador FORD. Oh, I would think everyone would look to the 

United States to do that. Our military command and control capabilities far exceed those of any of the countries I mentioned. 

Mr. PERRY. What do we do about the Russian anti-aircraft weapons that were shipped to Syria? 

57

Ambassador FORD. Well, we already have that problem, because 

we’re already flying combat missions over Syria regularly. So, I 

think what we want to do is tell the Russians—if we’re going to 

do this kind of military action, we want to tell the Russians that 

the point is both to stop the attacks, and to get to the negotiating 

table, and to re-energize the Russians to help us get there. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, and I want to thank 

all of the panelists for excellent testimony on this crucial humanitarian crisis that engulfs us everyday. We hope we take action 

soon. 

And with that, the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

60

f


95127n.eps
61


95127m-1.eps
62

f


95127m-2.eps
63

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MOHAMED TENNARI, M.D., IDLIB

COORDINATOR, SYRIAN-AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY


95127f-1.eps
64


95127f-2.eps
65


95127f-3.eps
66


95127f-4.eps
67

f


95127f-5.eps
68

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MR. FAROUQ HABIB, SYRIA PROGRAM

MANAGER, MAYDAY RESCUE


95127g-1.eps
69


95127g-2.eps
70


95127g-3.eps
71


95127g-4.eps
72

f


95127g-5.eps
73

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY ANNIE SPARROW, M.B.B.S., DEPUTY DIRECTOR HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRAM, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF GLOBAL HEALTH, ICAHN

SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI


95127h-1.eps
74


95127h-2.eps
75


95127h-3.eps
76


95127h-4.eps
77


95127h-5.eps
78


95127h-6.eps
79


95127h-7.eps
80


95127h-8.eps
81


95127i-1.eps
82


95127i-2.eps
83

f


95127i-3.eps
84

Æ


95127e.eps