Politico:
Despite mounting evidence that President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons on his people, many members of Congress still don’t see a role for the United States military in Syria.
A raft of Republican and Democratic lawmakers — including those directly involved in intelligence oversight — think the U.S. would be wise to take a pass on military intervention in the war-torn country.
Their line of thinking goes like this: Sending in U.S. troops now is too late, too dangerous, too pricey and not guaranteed to be successful. And a bombing campaign won’t do enough. There’s also the fear that the U.S. does not know who would lead Syria if Assad falls.
“Syria is too far gone to pick sides,” said Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee who taught at West Point. “The rebels are infiltrated with Al Qaeda. Assad has joined the ranks of history’s most evil despots in what he’s willing to do to stay in power. And Russia won’t help us find a solution because relations [between Washington and Moscow] are as bad as they have been in 30 years. I don’t see a way forward, but U.S. boots on the ground is out of the question in my opinion.”
Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California, the No. 2 Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said that the situation in Syria is “as complicated as it could be” but added that military intervention in Syria could “have unintended consequences that could, in fact, make the situation worse.”
“We should take all necessary steps to support the United Nations inspection efforts and keep a close watch on who has access and who could have access to chemical weapons,” Sanchez said in an emailed statement. “We need to make sure an attack of this nature cannot happen again. Going forward, Congress should be involved in any course of action that the Obama Administration takes.”
The administration’s options range widely — from sending in ground troops to deploying an air campaign to cripple Assad’s resources to humanitarian aid. But at this point, members of Congress seem unconvinced.
Of course, thinking can evolve. Members of Congress return after Labor Day and are sure to hear more from the administration about its plans. And if the situation worsens, lawmakers’ might change their positions.
Rep. Devin Nunes, a California Republican on the Intelligence Committee, told POLITICO that he is against any intervention unless there is “some overwhelming evidence that the Assad regime has used weapons and only the Assad regime has used the weapons.”
The Obama administration “waited too long, now you’re playing catch-up,” Nunes said. “I think they need to come to Congress to get approval to go in and present a plan. I don’t know what their plan would be. Just to lob a few missiles in there? Unless you’re trying to take out the dictator himself, I don’t know what you’re going to do with a few missiles.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said that “Absent an imminent threat to United States national security, the U.S. should not be engaged in military action without congressional approval.”
@Greg:
Yes you are sticking your head in the sand.
Syria is not a threat to tbe US. Iraq was supporting international terrorism and had invaded another country, as well as engaging in another war in which it used chemical weapons on Iran.
What I find truly interesting in all tbe debate about chemical weapons is tbe fact that the end result of tbeuse of such weapons is no different than that of a cruise missile, a tank round, a .50 cal round, a hand grenade or a bayonet. People are killed. Yet somehow a bunch of politicians came up with rules to try to make war more “civilized”.
Anyone who has ever been in combat will tell you it ain’t in the least civilized. It doesn’t matter if you kill 100, 000 people with conventional weapons, but now that 600+ were killed by chemical weapons, suddenly we need to march to war?
The key to having peace is to have the most terrifyingly powerful military in the world, and using it only wh en absolutely necessary to protect oneself. When you decide to weaken your military, as leftists always do when they occupy the Oval Office, then cry wolf too many times, all the other nations no longer fear your threats, and you get chaos like we have now in the Middle East.
Remember when Qaddafi turned over all his WMDs? Oh yeah….when we took over Iraq and Afghanistan with less than 2 months of combat operations.
Leftists should never ever be put in charge of the military again. Not if we want peace.
OLIVER NORTH MAKE A LOT OF SENSE, HE’S A TRUE STRATEGIC MIND,
AND HE IS NOT HAPPY WITH THE ACTIONS NOW,
Now now, Greg. That’s a shuck and jive dance you’re doing there.
The point about Saddam’s possession of WMD and proscribed (that would be illegal) missiles a decade ago is not of “greater important”. It’s simply the fact that many who rant and rave about military action in Iraq (I believe that does include you) – which did pose a clear and present danger, as agreed upon by Congress (both parties) from the early 90s up until (conveniently) election time just before 2006 – now think it’s legitimate to go into Syria. This despite no documented proof that it was Assad, and not the rebels, deploying the chem and bio weaponry.
Unfortunately, this is a flaw common to both parties’ elected officials. But for we common folk, it’s rather amusing to watch those, like you, who pretzel their way thru a desperate maze… attempting to avoid the parallels between Saddam/Iraq (which was far more than just WMD) and Assad/Syria when talking about justification and legitimacy.
Assad, unlike Saddam, did not have an agenda against the US. Even with decades of a shaky relationship with Israel, which was starting to improve under Olmert, you’ll notice that Syria did not retaliate when Israel destroyed the Syrian/NK nuke facility in 2007. In fact, a year later, Olmert sent a note to Assad saying they’d be willing to withdraw from Golan Heights as a part of a comprehensive peace treaty.
Then again, Syria’s rocket infrastructure wasn’t all that. So the reason the relations have been disintegrating at a more rapid pace since that time is because Assad has been cozy’ing up with both Russia and Iran, getting weaponry at low prices in exchange for Moscow being allowed to station subs off the Syrian ports, and renovate the Tartus naval base and port in Syria to accommodate their larger fleet vessels.
Israel has good reason to keep an eye on all of their neighbors, including Syria. However there are others just as vested in not seeing the ME erupt in full scale conflict.
Saddam had WMD, held his WMD program on the edge (and over it) with dual use programs, and obtained illegal missiles on the black market after 1998. Saddam is documented as using chem weapons. Assad has none of the above (i.e. thwarting direct UN multiple sanctions), and those he is battling in Syria *also* are documented as using chem weapons. Summary? We had more than ample reason for Saddam and Iraq, and zero for Syria. Our only intervention should be at Israel’s request if they are the recipient of the first strike.
@Pete, #53:
Attacking a civilian population with nerve gas as if you were spraying for insects isn’t combat. The evil nature of the act can’t be glossed over by using some euphemism like collateral damage. It’s the deliberate, totally indiscriminate slaughter of anything living. It’s calculated murder, deserving of a hangman’s noose or a firing squad. Even in the context of war, civilized people understand the concept of atrocity.
That said, I’ve repeatedly stated that I don’t consider dispensing justice an adequate reason for U.S. intervention in Syria. That’s not our job. To my mind, an adequate reason could be to remove Syria’s capability to produce or use weapons of mass destruction, whether by the Assad regime or by Islamist extremist factions that might gain control of them if the Assad regime falls. Whether it makes sense to do that depends on a careful evaluation of the risks of both action and inaction. Nobody here, including me, has enough information to speculate about that.
And how could that be done, Greg? It was a discussion being had on Cavuto this afternoon… and the difficulty being that this short term bomb and run wouldn’t do anything. You can’t bomb the caches without fallout repercussions, and in higher degrees and numbers than if placed on the top of a missile.
And I’ve been repeatedly telling you that not only has AQ used chem weaponry in 2007, they are already in possession of chem weaponry in Syria. I went over this my comment #8 way back in April… the last time the big gasp went up about “Assad” using chem warfare. Of course, it turns out that the suspected chemical used was chlorine gas, and it just so happens that al Nusra had been in control of Syria’s largest chlorine manufacturing plant for almost a year.
If you remember, I agreed with you on that thread in the idea of “what do you want Obama to do?”. Well, I want him to do the same thing he did then… not get the US military involved. Neither via NATO, or a small coalition. We should not get sucked into this continuation of “arab spring” vortex under false pretenses.
So there’s no bad guys getting Syria’s chemical weapons if or when Assad falls. They already have them. And again, how would you propose eliminating all chem and bio weaponry, safely, in Syria? Lofty, feel good idea, if not absurdly naive strategically.
I’d like to point out that to *not* engage with military action cannot be construed with “inaction”. What the US should do is get the regional neighbors to the table, and have them come up with a plan for Syria.