WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate Floor regarding President Obama’s flawed foreign policy:

“Historians will note that President Obama’s national security policy has been noteworthy for its adherence to consistent objectives: drawing down our conventional and nuclear forces, withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, surrendering the tools necessary to fight the War on Terror, and placing substantial trust in international organizations and diplomacy.

“In short, he’s displayed an inflexible commitment to policy positions that would erode America’s standing in the world. And he’s refused to change course as circumstances have changed.

“I, like many in the Senate, profoundly disagree with his view of America’s role in the world.

“I disagree because I believe that his attitude has left America weaker and will leave substantial problems to his successor.

“I believe that we—as a superpower without imperialistic aims—have a duty to help maintain an international order and a balance of power, not out of altruism, but out of national interest. And I believe that international order is best maintained through American military might. In fact, I believe that American military might forms its backbone. But President Obama has always been a reluctant Commander in Chief. It seems he’s always seen things quite differently.

“That was clear from his first actions in office. And his more recent actions set the other bookend to his presidency—withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“Consider that his very first week in office, he signed executive orders that sought to end the CIA’s interrogation and detention programs and sought to close Guantanamo within a year. The problem was, he didn’t have a credible plan for what to do with its detainees afterward.

“He still doesn’t.

“That was one of the first things he did in office. And it parallels disconcertingly with one of the most recent things he’s done in office: announcing the withdrawal of all of our combat forces from Afghanistan by the end of his term. I say that because, once again, he’s announced Step A without thinking through the consequences of Step B. He seems determined to pull out completely, whether or not the Taliban is in a position to re-establish itself, whether or not Al Qaeda senior leadership finds a more permissive environment in the tribal areas of Pakistan, and whether or not Al Qaeda has been driven from Afghanistan completely—one of our primary aims in this conflict from the beginning.

“The two examples I mentioned serve as bookends to his presidency.

“But, between those two bookends, much has been done that undermines our national security.

“For instance, the President’s inability to see Russia and China for what they are—dissatisfied regional powers intent on increasing their respective spheres of influence.

“The failed reset with Russia and the President’s commitment to a world without nuclear weapons led him to hastily sign an arms treaty that did nothing to substantially reduce Russia’s nuclear stockpile. And what do we have to show for the reset of relations now? Moscow was undeterred in its assault on Ukraine, as everyone can see. And Russia has repeatedly found ways to undermine our national objectives.

“Then there’s the President’s strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific—a plan he announced without any real plan to fund it, rendering the strategy largely hollow. We see examples of that almost daily, with China undeterred in its efforts to intimidate smaller nations over territorial disputes. And let’s be clear: we can’t ‘pivot’ forces to Asia that are still needed in places like the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. Nor can we constrain China’s ambitions without investing or developing the forces needed to do so. So I fear that the failure to make the kind of naval, air, and Marine Corps investments that are necessary could have tragic consequences down the road.

“And, of course, we’ve all seen how eager the President is to declare an end to the War on Terror.

“The threat from Al Qaeda and other affiliated groups has now metastasized. The turmoil unleashed by uprisings in North Africa and the broader Middle East has resulted in additional ungoverned space in Syria, Libya, Egypt and Yemen. We’ve seen prison breaks in Iraq, Pakistan, Libya and the release of hundreds of prisoners in Egypt. Terrorists have also escaped from prisons in Yemen, a country that is no more ready to detain the terrorists at Guantanamo now than they were in 2009. And the flow of foreign fighters into Syria—which has fueled the growth of ISIL—suggests that the civil war there will last for the foreseeable future.

“The dogged adherence to withdrawing our conventional strength and sticking to campaign promises has created a more dangerous world, not a more stable one.

“As just one example: the President’s failure to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq. An agreement like that would have allowed for the kind of residual military force that could have prevented the assault by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

“Now we see the consequences unfolding before our eyes. And it’s incredibly worrying. President Obama’s withdrawal-at-all-costs policy regarding Iraq has proved deeply harmful to U.S. interests, and it ignores the tremendous sacrifices made by our servicemembers – those who sacrificed life and limb fighting to keep America safe.

“Several weeks ago, the President spoke at West Point. And in that speech, he vaguely described a new counterterrorism strategy and pledged to engage ‘partners to fight terrorists alongside us.’

“He made clear that he hopes to use Special Operations Forces in an economy of force, and that he hopes to deploy, train, and assist missions across the globe – all as he withdraws our conventional forces, and as our conventional warfighting ability atrophies.

“As I said, he will leave his successor with a great many challenges.

“So this morning my colleagues and I will explain how by inflexibly clinging to campaign promises made in 2008, the President has weakened the national security posture of the United States. And why we believe he is likely to leave the next President with daunting security problems to solve.”