U.S. Senators Voice Unease that Limited Syria Strikes May Embolden Assad


Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire
See more stories about...
Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire
Sept. 4, 2013, 8:02 a.m.

WASH­ING­TON — Demo­crat­ic and Re­pub­lic­an law­makers alike voiced con­cern on Tues­day that the lim­ited mil­it­ary strikes Pres­id­ent Obama has pro­posed tak­ing against Syr­i­an forces could em­bolden Pres­id­ent Bashar As­sad, who al­most cer­tainly would ride out any such at­tack.

The Cap­it­ol Hill ap­pear­ance of Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry, De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel and Chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mar­tin De­mp­sey fol­lowed Obama’s Rose Garden an­nounce­ment on Sat­urday that he would seek a con­gres­sion­al vote in sup­port of se­lec­ted at­tacks against Syr­i­an chem­ic­al weapons-re­lated tar­gets.

The three na­tion­al se­cur­ity lead­ers test­i­fied be­fore the Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee. On Wed­nes­day morn­ing the pan­el was to hear clas­si­fied testi­mony on the mat­ter and then mark up a bi­par­tis­an res­ol­u­tion — ne­go­ti­ated Tues­day even­ing — that au­thor­izes use of force in Syr­ia, Chair­man Robert Men­en­dez (D-N.J.) said.

The three ad­min­is­tra­tion na­tion­al se­cur­ity lead­ers were slated to ap­pear be­fore the House For­eign Af­fairs Com­mit­tee at mid­day on Wed­nes­day.

The Sen­ate pan­el’s draft joint res­ol­u­tion ex­pli­citly rules out “boots on the ground,” a pro­vi­sion the Obama team has said it sup­ports but did not in­clude in the ori­gin­al draft text sent to Cap­it­ol Hill.

The text go­ing in­to mark-up al­lows for “a lim­ited and tailored” use of force against Syr­ia’s chem­ic­al-re­lated mil­it­ary as­sets, puts a 90-day cap on the au­thor­iz­a­tion and in­cludes sev­er­al re­quire­ments for re­port­ing back to Con­gress.

The U.S. in­tel­li­gence com­munity said in an un­clas­si­fied re­port re­leased last week that it has de­term­ined with “high con­fid­ence“ that As­sad’s mil­it­ary un­leashed sar­in nerve gas at­tacks on Aug. 21 that killed more than 1,400 people just out­side of Dam­as­cus.

From the GOP per­spect­ive, per­haps the greatest worry is that pin­prick sal­vos that fall short of dis­lodging the cur­rent gov­ern­ment could give As­sad new mo­mentum in his two-and-a-half-year civil war. Sev­er­al lead­ing Re­pub­lic­an voices are call­ing for a more am­bi­tious at­tack that turns the tide in fa­vor of Wash­ing­ton-backed op­pos­i­tion fight­ers.

What hap­pens, asked Sen­at­or James Risch (R-Idaho) at the For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee hear­ing, “if we go in with a lim­ited strike and, the day after or the week after or the month after, As­sad crawls out of his rat hole and says, “˜Look, I stood up to the strongest power on the face of this Earth and I won? And so now it’s busi­ness as usu­al here.’”

The Syr­i­an lead­er might be de­terred from fur­ther chem­ic­al at­tacks, but thou­sands more could yet be killed by con­ven­tion­al means, driv­ing un­told num­bers of ad­di­tion­al refugees in­to neigh­bor­ing na­tions, Risch said. To date the war has left more than 110,000 dead, ac­cord­ing to es­tim­ates, and hun­dreds of thou­sands more have fled to Tur­key, Ir­aq and Jordan.

After three to six days of U.S. cruise mis­sile strikes, As­sad may be “fur­ther em­boldened both do­mest­ic­ally and per­haps even abroad,” Sen­at­or Marco Ru­bio (R-Fla.) said at the hear­ing. “Have we taken in­to ac­count what the im­plic­a­tions could be of an As­sad that could weath­er a lim­ited strike and what that could mean for the long-term pro­spects of the con­flict?”

“He will weath­er” U.S.-led strikes, Kerry re­spon­ded, ex­plain­ing that the pro­posed use of force is not aimed at over­throw­ing As­sad but rather at pun­ish­ing the re­gime for the gas at­tacks and at­tempt­ing to de­ter any fu­ture chem­ic­al use. The at­tacks could in­clude French mil­it­ary forces and ad­di­tion­al sup­port from some re­gion­al U.S. al­lies.

Obama “is not ask­ing for per­mis­sion from the Con­gress to go des­troy the en­tire re­gime,” said Kerry, who has ec­lipsed Hagel in be­com­ing the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s point man on the Syr­ia mat­ter. “So [As­sad] will be able to stand up, and no doubt he’ll try to claim that some­how this is, you know, something pos­it­ive for him.”

In the long run, though, the lim­ited strikes could have “down­stream” ef­fects in harm­ing As­sad’s over­all war-mak­ing ca­pa­city, he said, as well as trig­ger­ing oth­er use­ful de­vel­op­ments.

“There is no way that it will, in fact, be be­ne­fi­cial for him, that it will not trans­late for him on the ground; that the de­fec­tions that are tak­ing place now and oth­er things that will hap­pen will fur­ther de­grade his ca­pa­city to pro­sec­ute it go­ing for­ward,” Kerry said.

Some in Obama’s own party share the con­cern about in­ad­vert­ently strength­en­ing As­sad. In con­trast to the view among some GOP law­makers in fa­vor of im­me­di­ately ex­pand­ing the scope of U.S. at­tack on Syr­ia, many Demo­crats worry that a lim­ited at­tack could draw the United States in­to much deep­er — and per­haps in­tract­able — in­volve­ment.

“I see this po­ten­tial bomb­ing cam­paign as a po­ten­tial next step to­wards full-fledged war,” said Sen­at­or Tom Ud­all (D-N.M.), not­ing “we’ve been here be­fore” when lim­ited U.S. ac­tion to ex­pel Ir­aq from Kuwait in 1991 ul­ti­mately led to years of Pentagon in­volve­ment.

“After the fiasco of Ir­aq and over a dec­ade of war, how can this ad­min­is­tra­tion make a guar­an­tee that our mil­it­ary ac­tions will be lim­ited?” Ud­all asked at the hear­ing. “How can we guar­an­tee that one sur­gic­al strike will have any im­pact oth­er than to tight­en the vice grip As­sad has on his power or al­low rebels al­lied with al-Qaida to gain a stronger foothold in Syr­ia?”

Kerry, a former Mas­sachu­setts law­maker and Demo­crat­ic chair­man of the same Sen­ate com­mit­tee, ac­know­ledged that it was “ap­pro­pri­ate” to con­sider the “un­in­ten­ded con­sequences of ac­tion.”

“Some fear a re­tali­ation that leads to a lar­ger con­flict,” the top dip­lo­mat said. “Well, let me put it bluntly: If As­sad is ar­rog­ant enough, and I would say fool­ish enough, to re­tali­ate to the con­sequences of his own crim­in­al activ­ity, the United States and our al­lies have ample ways to make him re­gret that de­cision without go­ing to war.”

De­mp­sey said that the De­fense De­part­ment has as­sembled not only a tar­get list for ini­tial strikes in Syr­ia, but also “sub­sequent tar­get sets, should they be­come ne­ces­sary.”

Some law­makers voiced wor­ries that Rus­sia, a long­time As­sad ally, might help Syr­ia re­tali­ate against U.S.-led at­tacks.

Kerry said, though, that he has gathered through ex­tens­ive dip­lo­mat­ic con­sulta­tions that “Rus­sia does not have an ideo­lo­gic­al com­mit­ment here. This is a geo­pol­it­ic­al trans­ac­tion­al com­mit­ment.”

In re­sponse to an an­ti­cip­ated height­en­ing of U.S. dir­ect sup­port for anti-As­sad rebels, Rus­sia may sell more weapons to Syr­ia “but it’s not go­ing to eli­cit some kind of ma­jor con­front­a­tion,” said the sec­ret­ary of State.

Kerry also re­jec­ted the view, ex­pressed by Ud­all and oth­ers, that the pro­posed ac­tion con­trib­utes to an un­wel­come view of the United States as the world’s po­lice­man.

“It makes the United States a mul­ti­lat­er­al part­ner in an ef­fort that the world, 184 na­tions strong, has ac­cep­ted the re­spons­ib­il­ity for,” Kerry said in an ap­par­ent ref­er­ence to the Chem­ic­al Weapons Con­ven­tion, which bans the pro­duc­tion, stock­pil­ing or use of these arms.

“And if the United States, which has the greatest ca­pa­city to do that, doesn’t help lead that ef­fort, then shame on us,” he said. “Then we’re not stand­ing up to our mul­ti­lat­er­al and hu­man­it­ari­an and stra­tegic in­terest.”

Neither the Demo­crats nor the Re­pub­lic­ans at Tues­day’s Sen­ate hear­ing dis­played party un­an­im­ity on the is­sue. On the GOP side, Sen­at­or Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a liber­tari­an, said he op­posed even a lim­ited U.S. in­ter­ven­tion in Syr­ia.

And, most Demo­crats on the com­mit­tee ap­peared to be lin­ing up in sup­port of the pres­id­ent. Men­en­dez at yes­ter­day’s hear­ing car­ried the ad­min­is­tra­tion ban­ner, at one point com­par­ing As­sad to a school­yard bully who needed to be taught a force­ful les­son.

Mean­time, the U.N. in­spec­tion team that was in Syr­ia un­til Sat­urday in­vest­ig­at­ing chem­ic­al at­tack al­leg­a­tions may take an­oth­er three weeks or more to re­lease its find­ings, Kerry told law­makers.

Obama would not ne­ces­sar­ily await that re­port, though, be­cause Wash­ing­ton already is con­fid­ent there is suf­fi­cient evid­ence im­plic­at­ing the Syr­i­an mil­it­ary in last month’s at­tack, the sec­ret­ary of State said.

Sen­at­or John Bar­rasso (R-Wyo.) asked if the White House would pro­ceed to at­tack Syr­ia even if it fails to win con­gres­sion­al back­ing — a le­gis­lat­ive out­come that Paul called “un­likely.”

The pres­id­ent “in­tends to win the pas­sage of the res­ol­u­tion,” Kerry re­spon­ded. “We’re not con­tem­plat­ing [con­gres­sion­al de­feat] be­cause it’s too dire.”

Cor­rec­tion: An earli­er ver­sion of this art­icle misid­en­ti­fied Sen­at­or Tom Ud­all (D-N.M.).

What We're Following See More »
GOP Budget Chiefs Won’t Invite Administration to Testify
1 days ago

The administration will release its 2017 budget blueprint tomorrow, but the House and Senate budget committees won’t be inviting anyone from the White House to come talk about it. “The chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees released a joint statement saying it simply wasn’t worth their time” to hear from OMB Director Shaun Donovan. Accusing the members of pulling a “Donald Trump,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the move “raises some questions about how confident they are about the kinds of arguments that they could make.”

Snowstorm Could Impact Primary Turnout
21 hours ago

A snowstorm is supposed to hit New Hampshire today and “linger into Primary Tuesday.” GOP consultant Ron Kaufman said lower turnout should help candidates who have spent a lot of time in the state tending to retail politicking. Donald Trump “has acknowledged that he needs to step up his ground-game, and a heavy snowfall could depress his figures relative to more organized candidates.”

A Shake-Up in the Offing in the Clinton Camp?
16 hours ago

Anticipating a primary loss in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Hillary and Bill Clinton “are considering staffing and strategy changes” to their campaign. Sources tell Politico that the Clintons are likely to layer over top officials with experienced talent, rather than fire their staff en masse.

Trump Is Still Ahead, but Who’s in Second?
3 hours ago

We may not be talking about New Hampshire primary polls for another three-and-a-half years, so here goes:

  • American Research Group’s tracking poll has Donald Trump in the lead with 30% support, followed by Marco Rubio and John Kasich tying for second place at 16%. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 53%-41%.
  • The 7 News/UMass Lowell tracking poll has Trump way out front with 34%, followed by Rubio and Ted Cruz with 13% apiece. Among the Democrats, Sanders is in front 56%-40%.
  • A Gravis poll puts Trump ahead with 28%, followed by Kasich with 17% and Rubio with 15%.