Congress Scrambles to Adapt to Russian Proposal on Syria

None

Philip Bump, Atlantic Wire
See more stories about...
Philip Bump, Atlantic Wire
Sept. 10, 2013, 11:02 a.m.

Both the Sen­ate and the House are re­vis­ing, but not abandon­ing, their plans for au­thor­iz­ing the use of force in Syr­ia in light of the emer­ging com­prom­ise on its chem­ic­al weapons. It’s the stick Pres­id­ent Obama in­sists is re­spons­ible for the car­rot of com­prom­ise — but the ef­fort still faces a great deal of op­pos­i­tion from both parties.

Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry, Sec­ret­ary of De­fense Chuck Hagel, and the chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mar­tin De­mpsy, made their third col­lect­ive ap­pear­ance be­fore a con­gres­sion­al com­mit­tee on Tues­day morn­ing. Speak­ing to the House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee, the group made the same points: We must de­fend the stand­ard pro­hib­it­ing the use of chem­ic­al weapons. This is vi­tal to our troops; it is vi­tal to our al­lies in the Middle East who are “just a strong wind” away from be­ing in­jured by these at­tacks.

“Let me as­sure you,” Kerry said, “the pres­id­ent of the United States didn’t just wake up one day and flip­pantly say, ‘Let’s take mil­it­ary ac­tion in Syr­ia.’ He didn’t choose this.” It was As­sad, he said, that forced the is­sue. Kerry also re­cog­nized the polit­ics at hand. “I know what you’re all hear­ing. The in­stant re­ac­tion of Amer­ic­ans all over the coun­try is ‘Woah! We don’t want to go to war again!’ … I get it.”

Kerry re­it­er­ated the need for au­thor­iz­a­tion in or­der for the com­prom­ise he awk­wardly in­tro­duced on Monday, after dis­cuss­ing it with Rus­si­an For­eign Min­is­ter Sergey Lav­rov last week (and who he was sched­uled to speak with after the hear­ing on Tues­day). Cit­ing an old say­ing — “noth­ing fo­cuses the mind like the pro­spect of hanging” — Kerry ar­gued that au­thor­iz­a­tion was needed in or­der to keep Rus­sia and Syr­ia in­ter­ested in com­ing to the ne­go­ti­at­ing table. He also offered sup­port for a new round of peace talks in Geneva, say­ing: “We don’t be­lieve there is any mil­it­ary solu­tion to what is hap­pen­ing in Syr­ia. But make no mis­take: No polit­ic­al solu­tion will be achiev­able as long as As­sad be­lieves he can gas his way out of this situ­ation.”

How long au­thor­iz­a­tion might be needed is un­clear. “We’re wait­ing for that pro­pos­al” from the in­ter­na­tion­al com­munity, Kerry said, “but we’re not wait­ing for long.”

Up­date, 11:30 a.m.: A mo­ment of con­ten­tion: Rep. Jeff Miller of Flor­ida pressed Kerry on why Syr­ia, with its chem­ic­al weapons, de­man­ded ac­tion while North Korea, which also has the weapons, doesn’t. Kerry began to an­swer, slowly, when Miller jumped back in to press him for an an­swer. Kerry, angry, asked, “You don’t really want an­swers, do you?” Miller replied that he was lim­ited on time and re­minded Kerry that, “this is not the Sen­ate; we do not fili­buster here.”

On the oth­er side of the Cap­it­ol, a group of seni­or Sen­ate lead­ers began re­vis­ing the au­thor­iz­a­tion for the use of force that its For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee passed last week. As Politico re­ports, the group in­cludes hawks like Sen­at­ors John Mc­Cain of Ari­zona and Lind­sey Gra­ham of South Car­o­lina, as well as Robert Men­en­dez of New Jer­sey who chairs that com­mit­tee.

The broad out­lines of the plan would call for the United Na­tions to pass a res­ol­u­tion as­sert­ing that Bashar As­sad’s re­gime in Syr­ia used chem­ic­al weapons in the coun­try’s on­go­ing civil war. A UN team would be re­quired to re­move the chem­ic­al weapons with­in a spe­cified time­frame. If the weapons were un­able to be re­moved with­in that timetable, then the United States would be au­thor­ized to use mil­it­ary force against the coun­try, the source said Tues­day. The timeline is still be­ing hammered out by the group.

Mc­Cain, for his part, isn’t ter­ribly ex­cited about the com­prom­ise plan. Speak­ing to CBS This Morn­ing, as re­por­ted by Politico:

I’m very skep­tic­al, and we should be since Bashar As­sad has re­fused to ac­know­ledge that he even has chem­ic­al weapons. I think the best test right away would be the Syr­i­an ac­cept­ance of in­ter­na­tion­al mon­it­ors to go to these chem­ic­al weapons sites and get them un­der con­trol im­me­di­ately. … If he’s ser­i­ous, then let the mon­it­ors in there right away.

Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell, fa­cing an out­spoken con­ser­vat­ive primary op­pon­ent, fi­nally offered his opin­ion on Syr­ia on Tues­day. Like that op­pon­ent, Mc­Con­nell is op­posed, Ya­hoo re­ports.

The pres­id­ent also still faces skep­ti­cism from the left. In an opin­ion piece at The Guard­i­an on Tues­day, Cali­for­nia Rep. Bar­bara Lee de­fen­ded her pro­pos­al to block the abil­ity to use force in re­sponse to Syr­ia’s use of chem­ic­al weapons.

Strikes against Syr­i­an mil­it­ary tar­gets not only have the risk of dir­ect ci­vil­ian cas­u­al­ties — some­times, in war, cal­lously called “col­lat­er­al dam­age” — but will not de­ter the As­sad re­gime from its con­tin­ued as­sault against his own people. Many ex­perts agree that these strikes would do more harm than good, and could lead the US deep­er and deep­er in­to the com­plex Syr­i­an civil war, which 60% of Amer­ic­ans op­pose. The path for­ward is clear: we must sup­port force­ful dip­lomacy, not mil­it­ary force.

 In one re­spect, Lee’s pro­pos­al goes fur­ther than the ad­min­is­tra­tion, call­ing for a Syr­i­an war crimes tribunal.

How Lee’s pro­pos­al fares in the House isn’t clear — nor is it ob­vi­ous what the Sen­ate’s fi­nal pro­pos­al will look like, or how any votes will come to­geth­er. For the pres­id­ent, though, the polit­ic­al tide has turned. He’s op­er­at­ing from a po­s­i­tion of much great­er strength than on Monday. Kerry sug­ges­ted that the ad­min­is­tra­tion won’t wait long for a com­prom­ise to be hammered out, but it is prob­ably will­ing to wait long enough for Con­gress to, at last, sign on in sup­port.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×