Senators Eviscerate ‘Delusional’ Administration for Having No Strategy in Syria

Syrian rebels fighting pro-regime forces gather along a road in Syria's eastern town of Deir Ezzor, on August 17, 2013. Al-Qaeda loyalists attacked a mainly Kurdish town in northeastern Syria sparking fighting in which 17 people were killed, two of them ambulance crew, a watchdog said.
National Journal
Sara Sorcher
See more stories about...
Sara Sorcher
March 26, 2014, 1:41 p.m.

Sen­at­ors hurled a flood of in­sults at seni­or State De­part­ment of­fi­cials on Wed­nes­day, in­sist­ing that the in­ter­na­tion­al push to re­move chem­ic­al weapons from Syr­ia has be­nefited, not pun­ished, strong­man Bashar al-As­sad at the ex­pense of tens of thou­sands of Syr­i­ans who have died since the deal was ne­go­ti­ated last year.

The com­bat­ive hear­ing, which saw law­makers dis­miss an­swers to ques­tions about U.S. strategy in Syr­ia as “ba­lo­ney” and “de­lu­sion­al,” was ex­plos­ive from start to fin­ish. The the­at­rics began after the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion dodged the first ques­tion from Sen. Robert Men­en­dez, who chairs the Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee. The New Jer­sey Demo­crat wanted to know wheth­er the U.S. is con­sid­er­ing any mil­it­ary ac­tions to help en­sure that As­sad’s gov­ern­ment does not quash the op­pos­i­tion.

Anne Pat­ter­son, the as­sist­ant sec­ret­ary of State for Near East­ern af­fairs, de­murred on out­lining pos­sible mil­it­ary op­tions in a pub­lic set­ting.

Cue the fire­works.

“Are you sit­ting here, try­ing to in­dic­ate to the me­dia and the people listen­ing that you guys have ac­tu­ally de­veloped a mil­it­ary strategy re­l­at­ive to Syr­ia, and that you will talk about it in a clas­si­fied set­ting?” Sen. Bob Cork­er, the top Re­pub­lic­an on the com­mit­tee, asked. “Be­cause if you are, that would be ma­jor news.”¦ [And it’s the most] ma­jor, mis­lead­ing ba­lo­ney I’ve heard since I’ve been in the U.S. Sen­ate.”

Pat­ter­son re­tor­ted that she would not “be, in ef­fect, bul­lied in­to an­swer­ing” in an open set­ting, so Cork­er answered for her.

“Let me just as­sure to the world: The U.S. has no mil­it­ary op­tions on the table,” he said. “What is our strategy in Syr­ia? I don’t see we have one, oth­er than let­ting people kill each oth­er off, and let­ting it fester…. To act like you have some sort of clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion is mis­lead­ing.”

Pat­ter­son in­sisted that the U.S. does have a policy to bol­ster the se­cur­ity of sur­round­ing coun­tries such as Jordan, send hu­man­it­ari­an as­sist­ance to rebels, and sup­port a dip­lo­mat­ic solu­tion to the con­flict while try­ing to “change the cal­cu­lus on the bat­tle­field.”

“I agree that many ele­ments of our policy have not been suc­cess­ful,” Pat­ter­son ad­ded, “but I think we are try­ing to re­vise our policy now.”

Sen. John Mc­Cain ap­peared astoun­ded. “This con­flict’s been go­ing on for three years. 150,000 people are dead,” the Ari­zona Re­pub­lic­an said. “And we are only now re­vis­ing our policy.”

Cork­er had some dark words for U.S. in­ac­tion, call­ing the ef­fort to re­move and des­troy As­sad’s chem­ic­al stock­piles a “shiny ob­ject” to dis­tract the U.S. from the bloody con­flict. “The best thing that ever happened to As­sad — this sounds really crass — was kill 1,200 cit­izens with chem­ic­al weapons,” Cork­er said, “be­cause [the U.S.], Rus­sia, and oth­ers have now propped him up and used that killing to al­low 40,000 more people to be killed.”

Tom Coun­try­man, as­sist­ant sec­ret­ary of State for in­ter­na­tion­al se­cur­ity and non­pro­lif­er­a­tion, said the deal forced As­sad to give up the chem­ic­al weapons he wanted as a stra­tegic de­terrent against Is­rael and con­strained him from us­ing them against his own people. “These are ac­tu­al losses for him.”

Cork­er fired back: “I think you’re de­lu­sion­al.”

“If I could ex­pand on my de­lu­sions,” Coun­try­man said, the in­ter­na­tion­al agree­ment has not val­id­ated or fun­da­ment­ally strengthened As­sad enough to change the mil­it­ary cal­cu­lus on the ground.

Men­en­dez punted some of these fiery ques­tions to a clas­si­fied set­ting. He wants to know all the mil­it­ary op­tions be­ing con­sidered and to ob­tain a com­plete list of overt and cov­ert ac­tions the U.S. is tak­ing to help the vet­ted Syr­i­an rebels. The chair­man also wanted to know what the U.S. plans to do with any chem­ic­al weapons As­sad has not yet dis­closed — and what tan­gible con­sequences Syr­ia will face if it does not des­troy its de­clared stock­piles by June 30.

“That’s what we want to know,” Men­en­dez said. “I don’t want to go to a clas­si­fied hear­ing with what I read in The New York Times.

What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×