WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., today called on the Obama Administration to step up its efforts to support Syrian opposition to the Assad regime and put an end to the 29-month-long crisis that has seen more than 100,000 people killed and 1.7 million people displaced from their homes.

Last week, Senator Wicker led a congressional delegation visit to a refugee camp on the Turkey-Syria border where he met with refugees and civilian leaders. The Wicker delegation also visited U.S. troops overseeing U.S. Patriot missile batteries in Turkey used to counter threats from Syria.

A copy of his remarks:

Mr. President, last week, I led a bicameral delegation that visited the Syrian border with Turkey.  What we witnessed on the ground further highlighted the critical nature of events and the desperate need for American leadership and eventually a negotiated resolution.

The Syrian civil war is now in its 29th month.  More than 100,000 people have been killed – including at least 36,000 civilians – and some 1.7 million people have been forced from their homes, fleeing for their lives as the chaos escalates.

To describe this conflict as anything less than a regional disaster is to ignore the magnitude of its impact.  According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the violence has pushed over 400,000 refugees to Turkey, almost 500,000 to Jordan, 160,000 to Iraq, 587,000 to Lebanon, and 88,000 to Egypt.

The people of Turkey and Jordan, including Prime Minister Erdogan and King Abdullah, should be specifically applauded for their generous support of these refugees.  I would also point out that there are now secure locations inside Syria where refugees can be housed within their own country.

There is noted international support to prevent the spillover of violence.  At the request of the Turkish government and in fulfillment of our NATO obligations, the U.S. Patriot missile batteries at Gaziantep are one example of efforts to deter the threat of ballistic missiles beyond the Syrian border.  Additionally, the Dutch and Germans have deployed batteries to Turkey.

American troops are working diligently to strengthen regional security and protect the innocent lives in harm’s way.  My delegation was able to meet and visit with our troops in Gaziantep last week.  These highly educated and motivated men and women are proudly serving American interests, and I commend them for their dedication to a critical mission.

Turkey must have the support it needs to defend its population and territory from the raging civil war next door.  Without robust cooperation among NATO allies, the stability of the entire region is at risk.

During our visit to a refugee camp in the town of Killis, situated on the Turkish/Syrian border roughly 40 miles from Gaziantep, we saw firsthand the dire situation facing the countries that have accepted Syrian refugees and the challenges these individuals now face.

We met with a women’s group, children in school, and with the elected camp council.  Our conversations were insightful – and heartbreaking.

Over and over again, the same questions emerged:  Why aren’t the Americans helping to bring down Assad?  Why are the nations of the world allowing the slaughter of innocent people to continue?  Is there no outrage over the displacement of more than a million and a half people from their homes?

Frankly, these are hard questions to answer.

So far, the Obama Administration has been reluctant to help, in contrast to the aggressive military and humanitarian aid provided by some of our NATO allies, such as Britain, France, and Turkey.  I want to emphasize:  No one is asking the United States for troops in Syria.  No one is demanding that President Obama put boots on the ground.  America is understandably war-weary from Iraq and Afghanistan, but our hesitation to provide arms to the anti-Assad rebels is hard to justify – especially when multiple “red lines” have been crossed.

Those who share President Obama’s reluctance to assist opposition forces point to the uncertainty surrounding those who might assume control of Syria if the rebels win.  Which faction will emerge, they ask, the more moderate rebels under the Free Syrian Army, or a radical Islamist brand of opposition rebels.  While caution is definitely called for in this dangerous and volatile situation, our reluctance to act reminds me of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who once observed that men “rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of.”

I would remind members – and the Administration – that Hamlet’s handwringing and indecision ultimately led to his demise.  In bowing to a fear of uncertainty and choosing disengagement, the implication is essentially that the world is somehow better off with a known quantity – even with a known quantity in the person of Bashar al-Assad.

I disagree.

Here are a few facts about the “ills” we know regarding the Syrian dictator:

1.  Bashar al-Assad is supported by the extreme Islamist regime in Iran, with a supply of Iranian Revolutionary Guards to embolden his murderous rampage.

2.  His grip on power has been serviced by Syria’s client-state relationship with Russia, which continues to defend its military aid to him.  President Vladimir Putin refused to join other nations in explicitly calling for an end to the Assad regime at last month’s G-8 Summit.

3.  Assad has tolerated – if not overseen – the killing of at least 36,000 civilians in his own country, according to numbers from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.  More than 3,000 of them have been women, and more than 5,000 were under the age of 16.

4.  Under Bashar al-Assad’s rule, the number of refugees has topped 1.7 million, with thousands more seeking safety every day.

5.  Bashar al-Assad has targeted the villages of his enemies in a merciless attempt to eradicate any who oppose him.

6.  Following in his father’s ruthless footsteps, he has shown that he is willing to use every tool at his disposal to hang on to power.  That includes the use of chemical weapons and rocket attacks on his own people.

7.  We have every reason to conclude he is a calculating strategist and student of history who has learned from what he views as the mistakes of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi.

With Russian and Iranian assistance and arms, Assad has succeeded in stopping the momentum of the rebels.  But with sufficient military support, the pendulum can in fact swing back toward the rebels.

I strongly disagree with those who suggest that these opposition rebels could somehow turn out to be worse than the nightmare that has unfolded.

Increasing America’s assistance to Syrian rebels, short of boots on the ground, must be decisive and strategic in order to be effective.  It does not mean we send arms freely to all.  I challenge the notion that in sending aid we forfeit the authority to choose which rebel leaders to support.  Both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that, within the Obama Administration, they argued in favor of arming the rebels.

Gen. Salim Idris, chief of staff of the U.S.-backed Supreme Military Council, has emerged as anything but a radical Islamist in presiding over the armed opposition and serving as a conduit for military aid.  A New York Times profile described him as “soft-spoken and humble compared with many military men.”  He defected from the Syrian military after an attack on his village last year – the same village where he and his eight siblings were raised by a grain farmer.  In a recent letter to the United Nations Security Council, his pleas for the Syrian people were clear and simple:  “Syria should not be allowed to become the Rwanda of the 21^st century.”

As I emphasized when speaking with Syrian refugees at the camp in Killis, a negotiated settlement will ultimately require reconciliation by representatives of all factions of the Syrian society – Alawites, Sunni, Shia, Christians.  They must be prepared to negotiate with and eventually forgive their fellow Syrians who have made war against them.  But I do not believe that can happen as long as Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers see the momentum going their way.  Russia will never agree to back a meaningful peace negotiation if the Russian leadership think Assad can win outright.

A “leading from behind” strategy will not expedite the overthrow of the Assad regime.  There is still an urgent need for American leadership.

There is no peaceful future for the Syrian people if Assad remains in power – only one of more violence, oppression, and regional instability.  Should he prevail, the impact could have drastic implications on America’s national security interests, including the prospect of increased sectarian violence in the region, the rise of al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria, and the expansion of Iran’s extremist influence.  The United States must not shy away from our potential to make a meaningful difference.

Our nation led an international coalition to act in Bosnia and Kosovo with success.  We did not in Rwanda – a mistake President Clinton has called his greatest regret.

I do not suggest that one visit to a refugee camp is by any means a comprehensive assessment of U.S. foreign policy in Syria.  Military assistance would be fraught with difficulties and produces a host of conflicting viewpoints among people for whom I have great respect.  But my observations of what is happening on the ground certainly bring home the enormity of human suffering and devastation that this conflict has caused.

Most of those unfairly caught in the crossfire just want to get on with their lives and protect their families.  Instead, they have been forced from their homes and their livelihoods – their entire way of life ripped apart by bloodshed that no human being should endure.

Mr. President, I invite the American press to visit Gaziantep and the refugee camps nearby.  The American people are entitled to know what is happening to 1.7 million people.

After more than 100,000 deaths, with so many left without a home, we should not stand by as the horrors mount.  The Administration’s indecision and hesitation leaves the fate of Syria’s war-torn people to a regime willing to kill and destroy to stay in power.

In summary, Mr. President, we know too much about Bashar al-Assad to maintain the status quo.  Backed by Russia and Iran, he has overseen the massacre of innocent lives, boldly crossed “red lines,” and violently suppressed any who challenge him.  To suggest that we cannot do any better – that Assad is somehow more acceptable than the opposition forces – falls short of taking an honest, realistic look at what has happened.

The question now is not whether America puts boots on the ground; it is whether the Administration will strengthen the capabilities of Assad’s adversaries.  The question is whether the Administration will trade its reluctance for resolve, and – like that of our NATO allies – respond with robust humanitarian and military aid.  So far, efforts in Geneva have failed to bring about a consensus among major world powers that outlines a lasting political transition.

Without moving the momentum back to the rebels, the current situation will not change, and the threat to regional stability will continue.