TIM KAINE or; greases llnitrd reruns Sarnatt WASHINGTON, DC zosm 450? an moms 2L4 402-4 CDMMI I TFE 0?5 THE BUDGEI SPF COMM ETTEE UN AGING. December 19, 2017 The Honorable Rex Secretary of State US. Department of State 2201 St, NW Washington, DC 20520 The Honorable James Mattis Secretary of Defense US. Department of Defense 100 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301 Dear Secretaries Tillerson and Mattis: I write to seek clari?cation and additional informatiOn on the counter-ISIS campaign in Iraq and Syria following the submission of the December War Powers noti?cation, statements from a recent Pentagon press brie?ng and troubling news reports on the changing U.S. mission in Syria. I am concerned that the United States will soon ?nd itself lacking domestic or international legal standing for operations in Syria based on of?cial statements that our presence, intended for a narrowly-scoped campaign to ?ght ISIS, might now be used to pressure the Syrian government, target Iran and its proxies, and engage other entities not covered under the 2001 AUMF. The December War Powers Act noti?cation to Congress does not specify the number of US. troops in Iraq or Syria, but at a recent Pentagon press conference, a DOD spokesman stated that there are approximately 2,000 troops in Syria, a 397% increase from the 503 troops cited six months earlier in the June noti?cation. He further stated that, ?We will be in Syria as long as it takes to make sure that ISIS is not afforded the ability to re-establish safe havens and conduct attacks.? Following this press brie?ng, Russia?s military announced on December 7 that it had accomplished its mission of defeating ISIS in Syria and that there were no remaining settlements there under ISIS control. On December 9, Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi declared victory over ISIS in Iraq and the end of more than three years of battles to regain control over areas that had been under dominion. Abadi stated, ?Our forces fully control the Iraqi-Syrian border, and thus we can announce the end of the war against Daesh.? That same day, the State Department agreed with Prime Minister Abadi noting, ?The Iraqi announcement signals the last remnants of 1813's self-proclaimed ?caliphate? in Iraq have been erased and the people living in those areas have been freed from 1818?s brutal control.? However, while welcoming Abadi?s announcement, additional Administration statements have suggested that a military presence in Syria could be open-ended to pursue objectives unrelated to the counter-ISIS mission. The original mission relied upon an expansive legal interpretation of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs detailed in the December 2016 White House report: ?Legal and Policy Frameworks Guiding The United States? Use Of Military Force And Related National Security Operations.? Additionally, on December 13, the War? StreerJoumal published an article quoting an unnamed US. official who said, ?Our leadership has set as an objective not to allow Iran and its proxies to be able to establish a presence in Syria that they can use to threaten our allies or us in the region.? The article also states that the Administration is considering whether to make ?confronting Iran an explicit new goal for the more than 2,000 American forces currently in Syria.? If these reports accurately re?ect your intentions, the actions you are likely considering far exceed the counter-ISIS mandate and lack domestic or international legal authority to support the continued presence of US. forces absent host nation approval or evidence of an enemy that poses an imminent threat to the United States. As such, I request answers to the following questions: a Is the Administration contemplating a policy that makes ?confronting Iran an explicit new goal for the more than 2,000 American forces currently in Syria?? 0 Has the Administration previously targeted, or is planning to target Shia militias operating in Iraq that are aligned with the Iraqi government? If so, under what legal authority? It Does the Administration have any plans to target Shia militias or Iranian proxies in Syria? If so, under what legal authority? I Does the Administration intend to retain a military presence in Iraq or Syria to combat Iran? If so, under what legal authority? Do you agree that ISIS is defeated in Iraq? Syria? . How does the Administration de?ne the ?defeat? of Please describe the conditions being evaluated for a ?conditions-based? withdrawal of US. forces from Syria. 0 Please clarify what reporting changes you made, if any, that could have resulted in the stark difference in US. troop numbers in Syria between this month and last. in Do you believe the 2002 AUMF authorizing the war in Iraq is still necessary? What operations in the past 5 years solely relied on the 2002 AUMF for legal justi?cation? 0 Secretary Mattis, you announced that the US. military would remain in Syria to ?ght ISIS and to propel Bashar al-Assad into participating in political negotiations in Syria. What would be the legal basis for using military force to compel Bashar al-Assad into participating in political negotiations? - The December 2017 War Powers noti?cation to Congress states ?the Defeat-ISIS campaign in Syria have undertaken a limited number of strikes against Syrian govemment and pro-Syrian government forces.? Have you deemed that Syrian government and pro?Syrian government forces are Associated Forces of ISIS pursuant to the 2001 Sincerely, #144; Tim 'ne OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 2000 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON. DC 20301-2000 2 9 ma POLICY The Honorable Tim Kaine Senator United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Kaine: This letter responds to your December 19, 2017, letter to Secretary Mattis requesting a more detailed explanation of the Department of Defense?s missions in Syria and Iraq, as well as the conditions for the defeat of ISIS. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) authorizes the United States to use force against al-Qa?ida, the Taliban, and associated forces and against ISIS. remains particularly focused on targeting ISIS and al-Qa?ida in Iraq and Syria. US. and partner forces in both countries continue to fight ISIS and al?Qa?ida and disrupt terrorist attack plotting. The Department of Defense is not targeting other militias or organizations, including Shia militia groups or Iranian proxies. In support of the President?s Iran Strategy, is reviewing the breadth of our security cooperation activities, force posture, and plans. The Department of Defense is identifying new areas where we will work with allies and partners to pressure the Iranian regime, neutralize its destabilizing in?uences, and constrain its aggressive power projection, particularly its support for terrorist groups and militants. supports State Department-led efforts to collaborate with allies and partners- and, through sanctions and multilateral organizations like the United Nations, to pressure Iran to halt its destabilizing activities. Although LS. and Coalition-backed forces have liberated the vast majority of the territory ISIS once held in Iraq and Syria, more tough ?ghting remains ahead to defeat physical ?caliphate? and achieve the group?s permanent defeat. ISIS is transitioning to an insurgency in Iraq and Syria, while continuing to support the global terrorist operations of its branches, networks, and individual supporters worldwide. Just as when we previously removed US. forces prematurely, the group will look to exploit any abatement in pressure to regenerate capabilities and reestablish local control of territory. As ISIS evolves, so too, is the campaign to defeat ISIS transitioning to a new phase in Iraq and Syria. is optimizing and adapting our military presence to maintain counterterrorism pressure on the enemy, while facilitating stabilization and political reconciliation efforts needed to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS. We, along with the Coalition and our partners, remain committed to 1813?s permanent defeat. ISIS will be defeated when local security forces are capable of effectively responding to and containing the group, and when ISIS is unable to function as a global organization. With the approval of the Government of Iraq, and other foreign partners are working with the Iraqi Security Forces to improve their capabilities and secure areas liberated from ISIS. In Syria, operating under current authorities, the US. military will continue to support local partner forces in Syria to complete the military defeat of ISIS and prevent its resurgence. The United States continues to support the Geneva-based political process pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 22 54. I would refer you to the State Department for more information regarding stabilization efforts and the political process. As part of our effort to accelerate the campaign against ISIS, revised how it publicly reports force levels in Iraq and Syria. As a result, now publicly reports that it has approximately 2,000 forces in Syria. These numbers do not reflect an increase in the number of personnel on the ground; rather, they represent a change in how these numbers are publicly reported. Under previous reporting practices, certain forces in Syria on a temporary duty status were not publicly reported, but they are now included in the 2,000 force total. For operational security reasons, US. forces conducting sensitive missions are not included in the publicly reported numbers. As you know, provides these classi?ed details to its congressional oversight committees in closed sessions. We anticipate these numbers will decrease as the nature of our operations change in Iraq and Syria, but we do not have a timeline-based approach to our presence in either Iraq or Syria. In addition to providing authority to conduct offensive counterterrorism operations against al-Qa?ida and ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the 2001 AUMF also provides authority to use force to defend U.S., Coalition, and partner forces engaged in the campaign to defeat ISIS to the extent such force is a necessary and appropriate measure in support of the D-ISIS campaign. The small number of strikes taken by US. forces since May 2017 against the Syrian Government and pro- Syrian Government forces, referenced in the June and December 2017 periodic reports to Congress consistent with the War Powers Resolution, were limited and lawful measures taken under this authority to counter immediate threats to US. or partner forces engaged in the D-ISIS campaign. There has been no assessment that either the Syrian Government or pro-Syrian Government forces are ?associated forces? of ISIS under the 2001 AUMF. The April 6, 2017, US. missile strike on Shayrat air?eld in Syria was not based on the authority of either the 2001 or 2002 AUMFs. Rather, as was noti?ed to the Congress on April 8, the President authorized that strike pursuant to his power under Article II of the Constitution as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive to use this sort of military force overseas to defend important US. national interests. The US. military action was directed against Syrian military targets directly connected to the April 4 chemical weapons attack in Idlib and was justi?ed, legitimate, and proportionate as a measure to deter and prevent Syria?s illegal and provocative use of chemical weapons. Finally, the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (2002 AUMF) continues to provide authority for military operations against ISIS in Iraq. It also provides authority to respond to threats to US. national security emanating from Iraq that may re?emerge and that may not be covered by the 2001 AUMF. The 2002 AUMF thus remains necessary to Support the use of military force to assist the Government of Iraq both in the f1 against ISIS, and in stabilizing Iraq following the destruction of 1818?s so-called caliphate. Sincerely, David J. Trachtenberg Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) cc: National Security Advisor, LTG HR. McMaster Secretary of State, The Honorable Rex Tillerson United States Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 FEB 12 2018 The Honorable Tim Kaine United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Kaine: Thank you for your letter of December 19, 2017 about the US. military counter ISIS campaign in Iraq and Syria. This response has been coordinated with the Department of Defense which I understand has written to you on January 29, 2018. Our purpose and reasons for being in Iraq and Syria are unchanged: defeating ISIS and degrading al-Qa?ida. The Iraqi Security Forces, including the Kurdish Peshmerga, and local partner forces in Syria, with the support of the 74-member Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, have made great progress in destroying so-called ?caliphate.? With Coalition support, our partners on the ground have liberated nearly all of the territory and millions of civilians once under despotic control. However, the threat posed by ISIS and al-Qa?ida is not solely dependent upon the physical control of territory by these groups. Ensuring that ISIS cannot regenerate its forces or reclaim lost ground is essential to the protection of our homeland. Realizing that military operations are necessary, but insuf?cient by themselves, to achieve enduring defeat, the U.S.-led Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS is committed to helping stabilize liberated communities through activities including restoring basic essential services, de-mining, and facilitating our partners? transition to sustainable, self-suf?cient security forces and credible, inclusive governance. Through this approach, we are laying the groundwork to prevent reemergence and setting the conditions that are ultimately conducive to allowing displaced Syrians and refugees to safely and voluntarily return to their homes. The United States also continues to believe that the Syrian civil con?ict must be resolved through a political solution, and a political solution can only be reached through the full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254. The domestic and international legal bases for use of military force by the United States in Iraq and Syria are unchanged, and outlined below. As a matter of domestic law, legal authority for the use of military force against ISIS and al- Qa?ida includes the Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 and 2002. The 2001 AUMF also provides authority to use force to defend U.S., Coalition, and partner forces engaged in the campaign to defeat ISIS to the extent such use of force is a necessary and appropriate measure in support of counter-ISIS operations. The strikes taken by the United States in May and June 2017 against the Syrian Government and pro-Syrian-Government forces were limited and lawful measures taken under that authority to counter immediate threats to US. or partner forces engaged in that campaign. The United States does not seek to ?ght the Government of Syria or Iran or Iranian-supported groups in Iraq or Syria. However, the United -2- States will not hesitate to use necessary and proportionate force to defend U.S., Coalition, or partner forces engaged in operations to defeat ISIS and degrade al-Qa?ida. There has been no assessment that either the Syrian Government or pro?Syrian-Government forces are ?associated forces? of ISIS under the 2001 AUMF. The 2002 AUMF provides authority ?to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.? The 2002 AUMF is an important source of authority for the use of military force to assist the Government of Iraq in military operations against ISIS and in continuing counterterrorism operations to address threats to US. national security emanating from Iraq following the destruction of 1818?s so?called physical ?caliphate.? As a matter of international law, the United States is using force in Iraq with the consent of the Iraqi government. In Syria, the United States is using force against ISIS and al-Qa?ida, and is providing support to Syrian partner forces ?ghting ISIS such as the Syrian Democratic Forces, in the collective self-defense of Iraq (and other States) and in US. national self-defense. Consistent with the inherent right of self-defense, the United States initiated necessary and proportionate actions in Syria against ISIS and al-Qa?ida in 2014, and those actions continue to the present day. Such necessary and proportionate measures include the use of force to defend U.S., Coalition, and U.S.?supported partner forces from any threats from the Syrian Government and pro-Syrian Government forces. We hope this information is useful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Mary K. Waters Assistant Secretary Legislative Affairs