Allahpundit:
The House and Senate committees are, of course, controlled by different parties, so this isbipartisan pushback.
Honestly, after Congress rolled over for O when he violated the War Powers Act to intervene in Libya, I didn’t think they had this in ‘em.
Congressional committees are holding up a plan to send U.S. weapons to rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad because of fears that such deliveries will not be decisive and the arms might end up in the hands of Islamist militants, five U.S. national security sources said…
Committee members also want to hear more about the administration’s overall Syria policy, and about how it believes its arms plan will affect the situation on the ground, where Assad’s forces have made recent gains…
Although initially the House committee voiced greater opposition than its Senate counterpart, after further consideration the Senate panel became concerned enough about the plan to write a letter to the administration raising questions about it, two of the sources said.
At the same time, the appropriations committees of both chambers, which also routinely review secret intelligence or military aid programs, raised doubts.
Funding is momentarily frozen and no U.S. arms have arrived in Syria — yet. One big wrinkle here: According to Reuters, the White House technically doesn’t need the intel committees to approve before it starts shipping weapons. It’s holding off right now under an unwritten rule that the commander-in-chief doesn’t move ahead with arming a new client until Congress’s intelligence brain trust feels comfortable. That makes me wonder whether O sees this as an obstacle or as a sort of convenient “out” clause which he can use as a pretext to cancel the dopey plan to arm the rebels and then blame Congress for having forced his hand when his Sunni allies complain. In that sense, this reminds me of Libya in reverse. In that case, Congress rolled over because it didn’t want to risk thwarting an intervention which the White House claimed was designed to save thousands from a mass slaughter. Better to let O skirt the War Powers Act and then raise hell about it later if the intervention went badly. In this case, with the mass slaughter having already occurred and nothing left on the ground but Assad and his Iranian masters on one side and jihadis and their weak moderate pseudo-secularist partners on the other, maybe O’s happy to roll over and then blame Congress later if Assad continues to steamroll the Sunnis. Egyptians are mad at him for being too cozy with the local Islamists, right? Well, here’s his chance to atone by pulling the plug on another bunch of Islamists who’d surely benefit from U.S. intervention, whether the White House intends that or not.
Congress has taken a decisive action, which the Assad regime surely must appreciate. They’ve frozen the funds the White House intended to use to pay for military aid to Assad’s opponents. They’ve decided on no action, which can have consequences every bit as serious as anything else.
Were the Assad regime to fall, there is admittedly a great deal of uncertainty concerning what sort of government would follow. It might be more moderate, or it might not. Assistance to the rebels is nothing more than a bid to obtain some measure of control over that outcome.
If the Assad regime prevails, we know what will have been accomplished: Syria will remain in the hands of a tyrant who has mercilessly slaughtered his own civilian population, who unquestionably has both chemical weapons and a reliable missile delivery system, who is very likely to try to reconsolidate his power by uniting various national factions in their hostility toward Israel, and who will be beholden to both Russia and Iran.
Which seems to carry the biggest risk?
@Greg:
So what you’re saying Greg, is that you want the US to get involved in yet another Middle Eastern war?
Frankly, Not knowing who we would be arming, it makes more sense to just send humanitarian aid to the refugees.
Peace baby.
I was posing a question. I’m not clear on the correct answer myself.
Seeing it through the lens of domestic politics probably isn’t going to help much.
@Greg:
As to your question:
There are more than two options, so let’s look at it logically.
(1) Assad is a murderous tyrant, and even if he was convinced to step down and leave the country, his regime is completely aligned with Iran.
Helping his sociopath regime is totally out of the question.
(2) From what we have learned of the opposition: The “Rebels” are a hodgepodge of various splinter groups. Some are actual Syrian nationalist rebels fighting to free themselves from his barbaric iron rule, There are likely other less altruistic nationals who see this as a chance to further their own Islamic movements from out of the ashes, Others are false “insurgents” from outside Islamic groups including the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qeada.
Even if we could somehow figure out which is which, who want’s to reform their government, from those with more nefarious intent, our aid may still end up in the hands of the radicals and outsiders who have been stealing arms and supplies from the Syrian resistance. Since we can’t ensure that we don’t end up arming al Qeada, the only logical move is not to arm any of them.
(3) Take military action, invade, take out Assad’s regime and occupy Syria long enough for them to build a new constitution, hold elections and get the nation back on it’s feet.
This of course is a completely untenable option I’ll call “The Son of Nation Building Rises Again”. The world, (most assuredly Russia) would never stand for it and we would be denounced and reviled for such a heavy-handed unilateral action when we have no national security reason to do so. It would also cost us heavily in men, war equipment and if/when we bug-out decades later, we will have only gained enemies.
(4) We can sit back and do almost nothing, waiting it out until the hostilities have run their course.
Whatever happens, no one in the Syria that survives would have any reason to to look favorably on America.
(5) We can simply work with other nations to set up refugee areas and send humanitarian aid to try to help those who fled their homes and the fighting to survive. We would have to have security forces assigned to keep the refugee camps from being raided and their supplies taken.
IMO, number (5) is the best choice, to show that we are a kind caring nation, which may help influence later generations that Americans are not the devils that they have been told. It may require us to supply troops unless neighboring nations or the UN supplies security forces, but our mission would be purely to protect and sustain the refugees.
For those who want us to totally stay out, there is also option (4) where we risk nothing, and gain nothing. If we have learned anything from the Middle East, it is that no nation there (aside from Israel really) likes or trusts the US. They only tolerate us because we buy their oil, buy them off with aid dollars or sell them things they need. We made some headway in Iraq, but there are also a lot of Iraqi who hate us for toppling Saddam.
My cynicism causes me to believe that we are totally wasting our time trying to make peace in the Middle East. If it weren’t for Israel, I’d say let them all war and kill themselves (like they all seem inclined to do).
@Ditto: My vote goes to number (4). We had a chance to make number (2) work but that has long passed. Number (3) would have been interesting just to see if the left would have risen up the way they did with Iraq or if they would have resorted to their usual hypocrisy and either stayed silent or supported the invasion because one of their ilk occupies the WH. They support some wars (D) and oppose others (R).
@another vet:
Yes, (4) is a viable option. Yet I do hold compassion for refugees from war, and Americans have a long history of sending aid the suffering. Even if it’s only a few tactical airdrops of US marked food and potable water near refugee camps. I wouldn’t be wild about putting the corrupt UN aid forces over such relief.