The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote today on a use-of-force resolution that sets a 90-day limit on U.S. military action against Syria and explicitly doesn’t authorize use of ground troops in combat.
The draft Senate resolution supports use of force in a “limited and tailored manner against legitimate military targets” during a 60-day period following enactment, with a possible 30-day extension at President Barack Obama’s request.
The Senate Democratic leadership supports the resolution, according to a Senate aide who asked not to be identified commenting before a vote. The measure was drafted by Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, the committee’s chairman, and Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the panel’s top Republican.
The language is designed to win over wavering senators whose support depended on a resolution written narrowly enough to avoid opening the door to sending ground troops into the civil war in Syria. More than 100,000 Syrians have died in the uprising against dictator Bashar al-Assad.
The U.S. says a Syrian chemical attack Aug. 21 killed more than 1,400 people, including many women and children.
The measure “gives the president the authority he needs to deploy force in response to the Assad regime’s criminal use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, while assuring that the authorization is narrow and focused, limited in time, and assures that the armed forces of the United States will not be deployed for combat operations in Syria,” Menendez, of New Jersey, said in a statement.
[h=2]G-20 Summit[/h]Amid one of the most consequential debates of his presidency, Obama left Washington last night to fly to Sweden en route to the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg in Russia, where the Syria conflict will cast a shadow over the official agenda.
The summit will bring Obama together with U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, who abruptly withdrew British participation in planned Syria strikes after losing a vote in Parliament, and with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has sided with Syria and blocked action in the United Nations Security Council.
The draft advanced the issue in the U.S. Senate at the end of a day in which Obama won support for military action from two House Republican leaders, Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor.
“The use of these weapons has to be responded to, and only the U.S. has the capability,” Boehner, of Ohio, said after a White House meeting called by Obama with congressional leaders and key committee members. “I’m going to support the president’s call for action and I believe my colleagues should support this call for action.”
[h=2]Republican Majority[/h]Obama’s foreign policy team still will have a tough selling job in the House, where a Republican majority consistently opposes the president and some left-leaning Democrats are lining up against the Syria military action.
A draft House resolution by two Democratic members, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Gerald Connolly of Virginia, would impose a similar 60-day limit to the Senate draft resolution and “excludes the authority to deploy United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria except with respect to efforts to rescue United States personnel.”
Both the Senate and House drafts authorize military force related to Syria’s chemical weapons without addressing the kinds of military actions that are under way to help the Syrian rebels -- such as covert training and arms supplies -- or those that may be considered, such as a no-fly zone.
[h=2]House Hearing[/h]Secretary of State John Kerry is scheduled to testify today before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where he may face sharp questioning about the administration’s military plans. At a hearing yesterday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry repeatedly sought to assure members that the U.S. won’t be drawn into a war with Syria.
“We don’t believe we are going to war in the classic sense of taking American troops and America to war,” Kerry said after Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said he’s not hearing from constituents that they want a war with Syria. “The president is asking for the authority to do a limited action that will degrade the capacity of a tyrant who has been using chemical weapons to kill his own people.”
In the hearing and in classified briefings for U.S. lawmakers, Obama’s top foreign policy advisers contended that evidence of the attack is clear and that the risks from U.S. inaction are greater than from taking punitive actions against Assad’s regime.
[h=2]‘No Intention’[/h]Initial skepticism about the intelligence among lawmakers has given way to concerns about how to constrain the president military actions against Syria. Kerry at one point in yesterday’s hearing said Obama shouldn’t be overly constrained by an “an option that might or might not be available” and then backtracked to emphasize the administration has no intention of sending ground troops.
“The bottom line is the president has no intention and will not, and we do not want to put American troops on the ground to fight this, or be involved in the fighting of this civil war,” Kerry said. “Period.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, is among about 20 senators who earlier said they would back the use of force. Almost 60 lawmakers -- mostly Democrats -- remained undecided.
“We don’t have a dog in the fight,” Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia told reporters yesterday after being briefed by Obama administration officials. Manchin, speaking before the draft resolution was circulated, said he hadn’t decided how he would vote.
[h=2]Military Force[/h]While no U.S. president has ever been turned down by Congress when asking to use military force, doubts about Obama’s Syria strike plan cross party and regional lines.
Almost six in 10 Americans oppose the U.S. conducting unilateral missile strikes against Syria, according to an ABC/Washington Post poll. The opposition drops to 51 percent if other nations such as the U.K. and France participate. Seventy percent oppose supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels.
In a survey by the Pew Research Center in Washington, 48 percent opposed air strikes on Syria with 29 percent favoring. In both polls, the opposition crossed party lines. In Pew’s tally, 40 percent of Republicans, 48 percent of Democrats and half of independents oppose the strikes.
While a majority of those polled agree that there’s clear evidence that Syrian forces used chemical weapons, 74 percent percent said it would likely lead to a long-term military commitment, according to Pew.
[h=2]‘Always Risks’[/h]At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel -- who joined Kerry and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey -- acknowledged those concerns.
“There are always risks in taking action, but there are also risks with inaction,” he said in prepared remarks, warning that the Syrian regime may “carry out even more devastating chemical weapons attacks.”
In addition, he said, “a refusal to act would undermine the credibility of America’s other security commitments -– including the president’s commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”
That message was reinforced by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby.
“Aipac maintains that it is imperative to adopt the resolution to authorize the use of force, and take a firm stand that the world’s most dangerous regimes cannot obtain and use the most dangerous weapons,” the group said in a statement.
[h=2]Assad Warning[/h]White House deputy national security advisers Tony Blinken and Ben Rhodes outlined the case for action against Syria during a conference call yesterday with representatives of American Jewish organizations, according to a participant who asked not to be identified because the discussion was off the record.
Assad warned that a military action by the U.S. risks igniting a wider conflagration.
“Everyone will lose control of the situation once the powder keg explodes,” Assad told Le Figaro newspaper in an interview published Sept. 2. “Chaos and extremism would ensue. There is a risk of regional war.”
While the U.S. ponders a strike, Assad is moving chemical weapons to locations including al-Dumayr military airport and the town of Adra, both near Damascus, according to Syrian Coalition media officer Khalid Saleh, citing a defector he said had confidential documents.
To contact the reporters on this story: Terry Atlas in Washington at [email protected]; Michael C. Bender in Washington at [email protected]; Kathleen Hunter in Washington at [email protected]
To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at [email protected]
The draft Senate resolution supports use of force in a “limited and tailored manner against legitimate military targets” during a 60-day period following enactment, with a possible 30-day extension at President Barack Obama’s request.
The Senate Democratic leadership supports the resolution, according to a Senate aide who asked not to be identified commenting before a vote. The measure was drafted by Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, the committee’s chairman, and Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the panel’s top Republican.
The language is designed to win over wavering senators whose support depended on a resolution written narrowly enough to avoid opening the door to sending ground troops into the civil war in Syria. More than 100,000 Syrians have died in the uprising against dictator Bashar al-Assad.
The U.S. says a Syrian chemical attack Aug. 21 killed more than 1,400 people, including many women and children.
The measure “gives the president the authority he needs to deploy force in response to the Assad regime’s criminal use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, while assuring that the authorization is narrow and focused, limited in time, and assures that the armed forces of the United States will not be deployed for combat operations in Syria,” Menendez, of New Jersey, said in a statement.
[h=2]G-20 Summit[/h]Amid one of the most consequential debates of his presidency, Obama left Washington last night to fly to Sweden en route to the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg in Russia, where the Syria conflict will cast a shadow over the official agenda.
The summit will bring Obama together with U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, who abruptly withdrew British participation in planned Syria strikes after losing a vote in Parliament, and with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has sided with Syria and blocked action in the United Nations Security Council.
The draft advanced the issue in the U.S. Senate at the end of a day in which Obama won support for military action from two House Republican leaders, Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor.
“The use of these weapons has to be responded to, and only the U.S. has the capability,” Boehner, of Ohio, said after a White House meeting called by Obama with congressional leaders and key committee members. “I’m going to support the president’s call for action and I believe my colleagues should support this call for action.”
[h=2]Republican Majority[/h]Obama’s foreign policy team still will have a tough selling job in the House, where a Republican majority consistently opposes the president and some left-leaning Democrats are lining up against the Syria military action.
A draft House resolution by two Democratic members, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Gerald Connolly of Virginia, would impose a similar 60-day limit to the Senate draft resolution and “excludes the authority to deploy United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria except with respect to efforts to rescue United States personnel.”
Both the Senate and House drafts authorize military force related to Syria’s chemical weapons without addressing the kinds of military actions that are under way to help the Syrian rebels -- such as covert training and arms supplies -- or those that may be considered, such as a no-fly zone.
[h=2]House Hearing[/h]Secretary of State John Kerry is scheduled to testify today before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where he may face sharp questioning about the administration’s military plans. At a hearing yesterday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry repeatedly sought to assure members that the U.S. won’t be drawn into a war with Syria.
“We don’t believe we are going to war in the classic sense of taking American troops and America to war,” Kerry said after Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said he’s not hearing from constituents that they want a war with Syria. “The president is asking for the authority to do a limited action that will degrade the capacity of a tyrant who has been using chemical weapons to kill his own people.”
In the hearing and in classified briefings for U.S. lawmakers, Obama’s top foreign policy advisers contended that evidence of the attack is clear and that the risks from U.S. inaction are greater than from taking punitive actions against Assad’s regime.
[h=2]‘No Intention’[/h]Initial skepticism about the intelligence among lawmakers has given way to concerns about how to constrain the president military actions against Syria. Kerry at one point in yesterday’s hearing said Obama shouldn’t be overly constrained by an “an option that might or might not be available” and then backtracked to emphasize the administration has no intention of sending ground troops.
“The bottom line is the president has no intention and will not, and we do not want to put American troops on the ground to fight this, or be involved in the fighting of this civil war,” Kerry said. “Period.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, is among about 20 senators who earlier said they would back the use of force. Almost 60 lawmakers -- mostly Democrats -- remained undecided.
“We don’t have a dog in the fight,” Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia told reporters yesterday after being briefed by Obama administration officials. Manchin, speaking before the draft resolution was circulated, said he hadn’t decided how he would vote.
[h=2]Military Force[/h]While no U.S. president has ever been turned down by Congress when asking to use military force, doubts about Obama’s Syria strike plan cross party and regional lines.
Almost six in 10 Americans oppose the U.S. conducting unilateral missile strikes against Syria, according to an ABC/Washington Post poll. The opposition drops to 51 percent if other nations such as the U.K. and France participate. Seventy percent oppose supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels.
In a survey by the Pew Research Center in Washington, 48 percent opposed air strikes on Syria with 29 percent favoring. In both polls, the opposition crossed party lines. In Pew’s tally, 40 percent of Republicans, 48 percent of Democrats and half of independents oppose the strikes.
While a majority of those polled agree that there’s clear evidence that Syrian forces used chemical weapons, 74 percent percent said it would likely lead to a long-term military commitment, according to Pew.
[h=2]‘Always Risks’[/h]At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel -- who joined Kerry and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey -- acknowledged those concerns.
“There are always risks in taking action, but there are also risks with inaction,” he said in prepared remarks, warning that the Syrian regime may “carry out even more devastating chemical weapons attacks.”
In addition, he said, “a refusal to act would undermine the credibility of America’s other security commitments -– including the president’s commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”
That message was reinforced by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby.
“Aipac maintains that it is imperative to adopt the resolution to authorize the use of force, and take a firm stand that the world’s most dangerous regimes cannot obtain and use the most dangerous weapons,” the group said in a statement.
[h=2]Assad Warning[/h]White House deputy national security advisers Tony Blinken and Ben Rhodes outlined the case for action against Syria during a conference call yesterday with representatives of American Jewish organizations, according to a participant who asked not to be identified because the discussion was off the record.
Assad warned that a military action by the U.S. risks igniting a wider conflagration.
“Everyone will lose control of the situation once the powder keg explodes,” Assad told Le Figaro newspaper in an interview published Sept. 2. “Chaos and extremism would ensue. There is a risk of regional war.”
While the U.S. ponders a strike, Assad is moving chemical weapons to locations including al-Dumayr military airport and the town of Adra, both near Damascus, according to Syrian Coalition media officer Khalid Saleh, citing a defector he said had confidential documents.
To contact the reporters on this story: Terry Atlas in Washington at [email protected]; Michael C. Bender in Washington at [email protected]; Kathleen Hunter in Washington at [email protected]
To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at [email protected]