In a private meeting at the White House on Monday with Senator John McCain, President Obama said he plans to give Syrian rebels more advanced weapons, according to McCain. If this happens, it would mark an expansion of Obama’s latest Syria strategy of possibly mounting a military response to Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons.
Evan Vucci/AP
McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham met with Obama to discuss the plan, which as currently outlined by the White House involves a limited mission to punish the Syrian regime’s use chemical weapons, as the Syrian president did most recently on Aug. 21, and deter future assaults. Administration officials have made clear that “regime change” is not an objective of the mission. But Obama’s new arming strategy would certainly help the rebels, whose goal is removal of the Assad regime. The White House didn’t respond to requests for comment on Monday.
“He said that he was willing to upgrade the capabilities of the Free Syrian Army” with more and different weapons, McCain said in an interview with The Daily Beast, referring to the largest of the rebel groups. “This was a shift in the president’s thought and actions from before.”
McCain and Graham have said they want to know the president’s broader strategy for the Syrian conflict before voting on the war authorization.
Obama didn’t say which weapons he would give the rebels, but McCain said the FSA needs anti-armor and anti-aircraft weapons to shift the momentum on the ground to their side. He said if the administration gives him enough specifics about the new arms pledges, he’ll vote to authorize military action.
“For the first time, we have an outline of action that could lead to the removal of Bashar al Assad,” McCain said. “I’m certainly willing to join in that effort but I need to know a lot of the details.”
Previous weapons pledges by Obama to the Syrian rebels have not been honored, McCain said. In June, the White House promised to increase its military assistance to the FSA in response to another set of chemical weapons attacks that the U.S. intelligence community concluded had been perpetrated by the Syrian regime in March. But those weapons never arrived, so lawmakers need greater assurances this time around, McCain said.
McCain will press administration officials for those details at a Tuesday hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at which Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey are all scheduled to speak.
The hearing kicks off what is sure to be a difficult task for Obama and his team in Congress as they make the case to lawmakers to authorize the use of force in Syria.
Classified briefings on Capitol Hill have stressed the evidence that Assad’s military was responsible for a series of sarin gas attacks on Aug. 21 on several Damascus suburbs, and have stressed the importance of enforcing a red line in response. One problem with any U.S. retaliation, however, is that chemical weapons depots are scattered throughout the country, often in and around civilian areas, creating the risk of an unintended chemical weapons discharge if attacked. That’s why the current war plans don’t include targeting the stock piles of chemical weapons, pre-cursor chemicals, or transit points for the chemicals themselves, according to three U.S. lawmakers who attended the briefings.
Also, many of the weapons have been mobilized, and in some cases the U.S. hasn’t been able to keep track of them. Dempsey said in April that he could not guarantee that the U.S. had the capabilities to secure Syria’s chemical weapons stock piles.
Sen. Bob Corker, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Daily Beast Monday that he thinks trying to degrade the actual weapons would not be successful.
“There are all kinds of facilities, you have some that have elements for mixing and these are scattered throughout the country, some are compounds that have a bigger significance . . . Many are in areas near civilians,” he said.
Instead, lawmakers say, the war plan at this point is aimed at Assad’s capability to deliver the chemical weapons through his air force and supply of short-range rockets and missiles. “They don’t want to hit the chemical weapons because they cannot destroy them,” one member of Congress told The Daily Beast. “The focus will be on command and control and delivery.”
Members of both parties are also aiming to limit what was seen as an overly broad resolution submitted by the White House on Saturday. On Sunday, Corker and Sen. Patrick Leahy both said they were pressing to limit the resolution.
“I got a copy immediately when it was produced and it’s broad. Because of where we’ve been with Iraq and Afghanistan, I just think it’s likely—more than likely—that the authorization at least on the Senate side will be more narrow,” Corker said.
Another member of the House who asked not to use his name said Democrats and Republicans have begun to express interest in limiting the duration of the military strikes and including language that expressly forbids sending American ground troops to Syria. McCain said attempts to limit the president’s authority in the resolution would be “harmful.”
Another concern for Republicans is how the White House intends to pay for the military operations in Syria. Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told CNN on Sunday that the president should also end the mandatory budget cuts to the military ironed out in the current budget deal known as sequestration before launching air strikes on Syria.
“We cannot keep asking the military to perform mission after mission with sequestration and military cuts hanging over their heads,” he said. “We have to take care of our own people first.” One House staffer told The Daily Beast that rough estimates for the Syria campaign range between $500 million and $1 billion.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
Josh Rogin is senior correspondent for national security and politics for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He previously worked at Foreign Policy magazine, Congressional Quarterly, Federal Computer Week magazine, and Japan’s leading daily newspaper, The Asahi Shimbun. He hails from Philadelphia and lives in Washington, D.C.
Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for The Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush’s axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at [email protected].
McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham met with Obama to discuss the plan, which as currently outlined by the White House involves a limited mission to punish the Syrian regime’s use chemical weapons, as the Syrian president did most recently on Aug. 21, and deter future assaults. Administration officials have made clear that “regime change” is not an objective of the mission. But Obama’s new arming strategy would certainly help the rebels, whose goal is removal of the Assad regime. The White House didn’t respond to requests for comment on Monday.
“He said that he was willing to upgrade the capabilities of the Free Syrian Army” with more and different weapons, McCain said in an interview with The Daily Beast, referring to the largest of the rebel groups. “This was a shift in the president’s thought and actions from before.”
McCain and Graham have said they want to know the president’s broader strategy for the Syrian conflict before voting on the war authorization.
Obama didn’t say which weapons he would give the rebels, but McCain said the FSA needs anti-armor and anti-aircraft weapons to shift the momentum on the ground to their side. He said if the administration gives him enough specifics about the new arms pledges, he’ll vote to authorize military action.
“For the first time, we have an outline of action that could lead to the removal of Bashar al Assad,” McCain said. “I’m certainly willing to join in that effort but I need to know a lot of the details.”
Previous weapons pledges by Obama to the Syrian rebels have not been honored, McCain said. In June, the White House promised to increase its military assistance to the FSA in response to another set of chemical weapons attacks that the U.S. intelligence community concluded had been perpetrated by the Syrian regime in March. But those weapons never arrived, so lawmakers need greater assurances this time around, McCain said.
“For the first time, we have an outline of action that could lead to the removal of Bashar al Assad.”
“As of right now, they haven’t received one weapon from the United States. Reports are that the United States has constrained other countries from giving them the kinds of things they need,” said McCain. “In order for me to be convinced about this, we need to know how they are going to do it [before we vote].”
McCain will press administration officials for those details at a Tuesday hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at which Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey are all scheduled to speak.
The hearing kicks off what is sure to be a difficult task for Obama and his team in Congress as they make the case to lawmakers to authorize the use of force in Syria.
Classified briefings on Capitol Hill have stressed the evidence that Assad’s military was responsible for a series of sarin gas attacks on Aug. 21 on several Damascus suburbs, and have stressed the importance of enforcing a red line in response. One problem with any U.S. retaliation, however, is that chemical weapons depots are scattered throughout the country, often in and around civilian areas, creating the risk of an unintended chemical weapons discharge if attacked. That’s why the current war plans don’t include targeting the stock piles of chemical weapons, pre-cursor chemicals, or transit points for the chemicals themselves, according to three U.S. lawmakers who attended the briefings.
Also, many of the weapons have been mobilized, and in some cases the U.S. hasn’t been able to keep track of them. Dempsey said in April that he could not guarantee that the U.S. had the capabilities to secure Syria’s chemical weapons stock piles.
Sen. Bob Corker, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Daily Beast Monday that he thinks trying to degrade the actual weapons would not be successful.
“There are all kinds of facilities, you have some that have elements for mixing and these are scattered throughout the country, some are compounds that have a bigger significance . . . Many are in areas near civilians,” he said.
Instead, lawmakers say, the war plan at this point is aimed at Assad’s capability to deliver the chemical weapons through his air force and supply of short-range rockets and missiles. “They don’t want to hit the chemical weapons because they cannot destroy them,” one member of Congress told The Daily Beast. “The focus will be on command and control and delivery.”
Members of both parties are also aiming to limit what was seen as an overly broad resolution submitted by the White House on Saturday. On Sunday, Corker and Sen. Patrick Leahy both said they were pressing to limit the resolution.
“I got a copy immediately when it was produced and it’s broad. Because of where we’ve been with Iraq and Afghanistan, I just think it’s likely—more than likely—that the authorization at least on the Senate side will be more narrow,” Corker said.
Another member of the House who asked not to use his name said Democrats and Republicans have begun to express interest in limiting the duration of the military strikes and including language that expressly forbids sending American ground troops to Syria. McCain said attempts to limit the president’s authority in the resolution would be “harmful.”
Another concern for Republicans is how the White House intends to pay for the military operations in Syria. Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told CNN on Sunday that the president should also end the mandatory budget cuts to the military ironed out in the current budget deal known as sequestration before launching air strikes on Syria.
“We cannot keep asking the military to perform mission after mission with sequestration and military cuts hanging over their heads,” he said. “We have to take care of our own people first.” One House staffer told The Daily Beast that rough estimates for the Syria campaign range between $500 million and $1 billion.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
Josh Rogin is senior correspondent for national security and politics for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He previously worked at Foreign Policy magazine, Congressional Quarterly, Federal Computer Week magazine, and Japan’s leading daily newspaper, The Asahi Shimbun. He hails from Philadelphia and lives in Washington, D.C.
Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for The Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush’s axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at [email protected].