Obama’s battle to get congressional approval for a military strike on Syria moved a step closer Tuesday, with leaders of both parties in Congress announcing that the United States should respond to Syrian President Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons.
President Obama convinced leaders of both Democrats and
Republicans in Congress to support his request for the
authorization of a military strike on Syria. After a meeting with
more than a dozen senior lawmakers, members of both parties went
public, praising Obama’s plan and pledging a ‘yes’ vote on the
operation against the Syrian government.
John Boehner, the Republican House Speaker, after coming out of a
meeting in the White House told reporters why the United States
should get behind the president.
to do. I’m going to support the president’s call for action. I
believe that my colleagues should support this call for
action,” he said.House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Majority
Leader Eric Cantor also said that they will both support actions
against the Assad government.
Obama had been meeting more than a dozen lawmakers in the White
House Cabinet Room to push for limited strikes to dismantle
Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons in the future.
The president is confident he can persuade a skeptical American
public that Syria is not Afghanistan or Iraq, and that US
military action will be a “limited, proportionate
step.”
Boehner said that only the US has the capability to stop Assad.
He was the only Republican to speak to reporters after the White
House meeting.
“We have enemies around the world that need to understand
we’re not going to tolerate this type of behavior. We also have
allies around the world and allies in the region who also need to
know that America will be there and stand up when it’s
necessary,” he added.
His views were echoed by Eliot Engel, the top Democrat to attend
the White House meeting from the House Foreign Affairs
Committee.
“We are talking about weapons of mass destruction. This is war
crime. If we didn’t respond in kind it would send a message to
every despot, every thug, every dictator, every terrorist group
in the world that you can murder your own citizens with impunity
and nothing is going to happen,” he said.
But after over a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the polls
show that Americans are opposed to any new overseas military
intervention. This reluctance is reflected by senators and
representatives who believe Obama still hasn’t produced concrete
evidence that it was Assad who used chemical weapons on August 21
or why it is in America’s interest to intervene.
Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan, tweeted that he has
been talking to his constituents and armed forces personnel,
neither of whom have the stomach for military action in
Syria.
“I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our Armed
Forces,” Amash tweeted. “The message I consistently hear:
Please vote no on military action against Syria.”
Rick Nolan, a Democrat from Minnesota, also said that he would
strongly oppose any military action.
“I am vehemently opposed to a military strike that would
clearly be an act of war against Syria, especially under such
tragic yet confusing circumstances as to who is responsible for
the use of chemical weapons,” he said.
Skepticism is shared by many tea party Republicans and others on
the right and left who oppose military intervention for
ideological reason and for specific reasons on authorizing the
use of force without constraints on timing, costs and the scope
of any attack.
Senator Rand Paul also said he would vote against
resolution.
“Who is on America’s side over there? If the rebels win, will
they be American allies? Assad’s definitely not. I’m not
convinced anybody on the Islamic side will be American
allies,” he said.
He also warned that it wouldn’t be helpful to amend any
resolution that constrains Obama too much to execute military
action, something that some lawmakers are calling for.
Rand’s views were echoed by Tim Kaine a Democrat for Virginia who
said that limits on the scope of military action may be
necessary.
“I’m stickler about Congress having to weigh in about the
initiation of military action. But the Commander in chief, we
really have to him some latitude to implement,” said
Kaine.
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, a Democrat for Nevada and
Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Menendez have said that
they want to craft a resolution narrower than the broad one
proposed by the administration on Saturday.
The proposed measure would limit the duration of any military
action and expressly state that no US ground forces would be
used.
Obama has said he is open to changing the language to address
lawmakers concerns but has said he wants a prompt vote.
“So long as we are accomplishing what needs to be
accomplished, which is to send a clear message to Assad, to
degrade his capabilities to use chemical weapons, not just now
but also in the future, as long as the authorization allows us to
do that, I’m confident that we’re going to be able to come up
with something that hits that mark,” Obama said.
Other lawmakers are still on the fence, new kid on the block Trey
Radel a Republican for Florida said that he still hadn’t made up
his mind.
“Being new here, I’m very skeptical of Republicans and
Democrats that have dragged us into wars of the past. Still
today, when we look at Afghanistan and Iraq, I am questioning:
What is the end goal within these countries? What have we
accomplished with so many lives being lost?” he told
reporters.
Republished from: RT