Syria Debate Splinters GOP Though Bipartisan Resolution Remains the Goal

Add to Briefcase
Billy House And Michael Catalini, National Journal
Sept. 4, 2013, 5:02 a.m.

WASH­ING­TON — While the Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee could get down to draft­ing a new bi­par­tis­an res­ol­u­tion on Syr­ia on Wed­nes­day, the House will kick off its own de­bate on wheth­er to au­thor­ize mil­it­ary force amid clear di­vi­sions between Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers and con­ser­vat­ive act­iv­ists.

Dur­ing the open­ing round of the Sen­ate pan­el’s de­bate on Tues­day, For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee Chair­man Robert Men­en­dez, D-N.J., said he was work­ing with rank­ing mem­ber Bob Cork­er, R-Tenn., on the text of a bi­par­tis­an res­ol­u­tion and that the com­mit­tee could con­sider it as soon as Wed­nes­day dur­ing a closed meet­ing with the Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee.

Men­en­dez did not give de­tails of what would be changed from the res­ol­u­tion sent to Con­gress by the White House, but he said it would provide the “max­im­um abil­ity” for the ad­min­is­tra­tion to meet the goals it hopes to achieve in Syr­ia while pre­vent­ing an “open-ended en­gage­ment” or the use of Amer­ic­an troops on the ground.

On the House side, even as Speak­er John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Eric Can­tor, R-Va., said they will vote to au­thor­ize a lim­ited strike, a Boehner spokes­man em­phas­ized there re­mains a tough “up­hill battle to pass a res­ol­u­tion” and un­der­scored that the speak­er ex­pects the White House — not his lead­er­ship team — to lead the whip­ping ef­fort for votes.

The mixed mes­sage came as in­flu­en­tial con­ser­vat­ive policy or­gan­iz­a­tions were seek­ing to con­vince rank-and-file law­makers to op­pose Pres­id­ent Obama’s re­quest for a mil­it­ary strike. One group, Her­it­age Ac­tion — the polit­ic­al arm of the Her­it­age Found­a­tion — dir­ectly re­buffed Boehner and Can­tor, ar­guing that a vi­tal U.S. in­terest is not at stake in Syr­ia. De­clin­ing to say wheth­er the group would score law­makers on the Syr­ia res­ol­u­tion, Her­it­age Ac­tion spokes­man Dan Holler ar­gued that Con­gress faces more press­ing do­mest­ic is­sues like the farm bill and the debt ceil­ing.

The con­tin­ued re­luct­ance, skep­ti­cism, or op­pos­i­tion of vari­ous seg­ments of law­makers was fully on dis­play at Tues­day’s Sen­ate hear­ing as Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry, De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair­man Gen. Mar­tin De­mp­sey made the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s case for re­tali­at­ing against Syr­i­an lead­ers for us­ing chem­ic­al weapons in a bru­tal civil war. For now, it ap­pears too early to pre­dict the out­come of any vote, which could come next week.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has said he thinks it would be a mis­take to get in­volved in Syr­ia, made his skep­ti­cism clear in ques­tion­ing Kerry. Paul asked, if Con­gress votes down the war res­ol­u­tion — though he said he didn’t be­lieve that will hap­pen — would the ad­min­is­tra­tion not go for­ward with an ac­tion in Syr­ia? “You’re mak­ing a joke of us” if this is not real, Paul said.

Kerry re­spon­ded that he doesn’t know what the pres­id­ent’s de­cision would be, that he in­tends to win this vote, but that he still would have con­sti­tu­tion­al au­thor­ity to take ac­tion if he does not. “I don’t be­lieve he does,” Paul re­spon­ded.

Asked after the hear­ing if there would be a fili­buster, Paul answered af­firm­at­ively, say­ing he be­lieved 60 votes would be re­quired to con­sider the res­ol­u­tion in the Sen­ate. But pressed on wheth­er he would fili­buster on his own, as he did for 13 hours earli­er this year on Obama’s nom­in­ee for in­tel­li­gence dir­ect­or, Paul cracked that he would have to check his shoes and de­cide if he could hold out that long without a bath­room break.

A num­ber of lib­er­al Demo­crats are openly ad­voc­at­ing in­ter­ven­tion, some on hu­man­it­ari­an grounds. Sens. Bar­bara Box­er of Cali­for­nia and Ben Cardin of Mary­land are among those who have joined with House Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal­if., in say­ing they sup­port a lim­ited op­er­a­tion.

“I know there is tre­mend­ous re­luct­ance to not get in­volved in an­oth­er mil­it­ary ac­tion,” Box­er said. “I will sup­port this tar­get ef­fort, but not a blank check.” Cardin said: “It’s clear we have to re­spond, and a mil­it­ary re­sponse is jus­ti­fied.”

Sen. Ed­ward Mar­key, D-Mass., asked Kerry wheth­er it would be wise for the United States to wait for ana­lys­is and data from the United Na­tions in­spect­ors “to en­sure a sig­nal sent to in­ter­na­tion­al com­munity as to the vera­city.” Kerry re­spon­ded that it could take two to four weeks for the U.N. to fin­ish its ana­lys­is, and that there is already a suf­fi­cient level of con­firm­a­tion that a chem­ic­al at­tack took place. Kerry also said the U.N. man­date will only al­low the in­spect­ors to say a chem­ic­al weapons at­tack did take place: “They have no man­date to as­sign blame, who did it.”

Sen. Chris­toph­er Coons, D-Del., told Kerry there is a “wear­i­ness of war” among his con­stitu­ents, who worry that the United States could be drawn in­to a civil war “that we don’t quite un­der­stand.” But Coons ad­ded that after re­view­ing clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion provided to law­makers Tues­day morn­ing, he be­lieves there has been a clear vi­ol­a­tion of a long­stand­ing glob­al stand­ard of be­ha­vi­or, and “that we face a real risk here if we do not act.”

Coons says he still pon­ders how ex­actly a war res­ol­u­tion should be writ­ten, though. And Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., ex­pressed sim­il­ar sen­ti­ments, telling Kerry he hoped the White House would co­oper­ate in draft­ing res­ol­u­tion lan­guage, in bi­par­tis­an fash­ion, “that does not ex­pand au­thor­iz­a­tion bey­ond what is ne­ces­sary.”

Some for­eign policy hawks in the Re­pub­lic­an Party are also call­ing for the use of mil­it­ary force; some even say the goal should be to over­throw Pres­id­ent Bashar al-As­sad. And they even seem ir­rit­ated by the delay.

“If we re­ject this res­ol­u­tion, doesn’t this send a ser­i­ously bad mes­sage “¦ en­cour­age our en­emies and dis­cour­age our friends?” asked Sen. John Mc­Cain, R-Ar­iz., dur­ing the hear­ing. Mc­Cain also told Kerry that it’s “ri­dicu­lous” to think that when you tell the en­emy be­fore­hand you’re go­ing to at­tack them that they are not go­ing to dis­perse and move as­sets and make it harder.

In his own re­marks Tues­day, Obama again stressed to re­port­ers that the mil­it­ary ac­tion he en­vi­sions is based on the “high con­fid­ence” that As­sad’s re­gime used chem­ic­al weapons in an at­tack against his own people last month and that the U.S. ac­tion would be a “lim­ited, pro­por­tion­al step.” Obama ad­ded that he was con­fid­ent that Con­gress will au­thor­ize ac­tion, “so long as we are ac­com­plish­ing what needs to be ac­com­plished — which is to send a clear mes­sage to As­sad de­grad­ing his cap­ab­il­it­ies to use chem­ic­al weapons.”

“This is not the time for arm­chair isol­a­tion­ism,” Kerry said dur­ing the hear­ing, which was in­ter­rup­ted briefly by some mild protests, in­clud­ing by one demon­strat­or who shouted out that no one wants war as Cap­it­ol Po­lice car­ried her out of the room.

Asked wheth­er the cost of an op­er­a­tion in Syr­ia con­trib­uted to the group’s op­pos­i­tion, Her­it­age Ac­tion’s Holler said it was one factor, but not the prin­cip­al one. A mis­sion in Syr­ia could be used to roll back spend­ing caps agreed to un­der the Budget Con­trol Act of 2011, Holler said.

That did not sit well with all Re­pub­lic­ans, though.

“It’s pretty strik­ing that Her­it­age has de­cided to go full liber­tari­an un­der [Her­it­age Found­a­tion Pres­id­ent Jim] De­Mint and aban­don four dec­ades of lead­ing the Re­agan ‘peace-through-strength’ caucus,” a seni­or GOP aide said.

The liber­tari­an Cato In­sti­tute also pub­lished pa­pers crit­ic­al of an at­tack on the Syr­i­an re­gime, ar­guing that get­ting in­volved in Syr­ia would “en­snare Amer­ic­ans in a com­pletely un­ne­ces­sary con­flict.”

Doug Ban­dow, a seni­or fel­low at Cato, poin­ted out that Boehner spent eight years of his con­gres­sion­al ca­reer un­der Pres­id­ent George W. Bush, whose in­ter­ven­tion­ist policies led to war in Ir­aq. Tak­ing an ag­gress­ive stance on Syr­ia, then, fits with that for­eign policy point of view, Ban­dow ar­gued.

Roughly four in­form­al di­vi­sions ex­ist in the House GOP con­fer­ence, Ban­dow said. There is a small corps of mem­bers who will align them­selves with Boehner and Can­tor; there are hawks, like Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who will sup­port the strike; and there are liber­tari­ans, like Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., who will op­pose the meas­ure on philo­soph­ic­al grounds. But the largest con­tin­gent, Ban­dow ar­gues, is a prag­mat­ic group of mem­bers who two years ago were privately skep­tic­al about Afgh­anistan but re­mained pub­licly sup­port­ive of the war.

“It’s hard to pre­dict,” Ban­dow said. “The ques­tion is, ‘To what ex­tent can they be con­vinced that you can be half-preg­nant in this case?’ “

Boehner and Can­tor both made their sup­port known after they joined oth­er law­makers in a meet­ing with Obama and Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden at the White House. Oth­er law­makers at the meet­ing in­cluded Pelosi, Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell, R-Ky., and a num­ber of com­mit­tee lead­ers from both parties.

Boehner told re­port­ers at the White House after the meet­ing, “Only the United States has the cap­ab­il­ity and the ca­pa­city to stop As­sad and to warn oth­ers around the world that this type of be­ha­vi­or is not go­ing to be tol­er­ated.”

“I ap­pre­ci­ate the pres­id­ent reach­ing out to me and my col­leagues in the Con­gress over the last couple of weeks. I also ap­pre­ci­ate the pres­id­ent ask­ing the Con­gress to sup­port him in this ac­tion,” Boehner said. “This is something that the United States, as a coun­try, needs to do. I’m go­ing to sup­port the pres­id­ent’s call for ac­tion. I be­lieve that my col­leagues should sup­port this call for ac­tion.

Later, Boehner put the re­spons­ib­il­ity for drum­ming up sup­port for the au­thor­iz­a­tion res­ol­u­tion on the pres­id­ent. “Every­one un­der­stands that it is an up­hill battle to pass a res­ol­u­tion, and the speak­er ex­pects the White House to provide an­swers to mem­bers’ ques­tions and take the lead on any whip­ping ef­fort,” Boehner spokes­man Mi­chael Steel said.

Can­tor an­nounced in a state­ment, “I in­tend to vote to provide the pres­id­ent of the United States the op­tion to use mil­it­ary force in Syr­ia.”

“While the au­thor­iz­ing lan­guage will likely change, the un­der­ly­ing real­ity will not,” Can­tor said. “Amer­ica has a com­pel­ling na­tion­al se­cur­ity in­terest to pre­vent and re­spond to the use of weapons of mass de­struc­tion, es­pe­cially by a ter­ror­ist state such as Syr­ia, and to pre­vent fur­ther in­stabil­ity in a re­gion of vi­tal in­terest to the United States.”

Pelosi, who already has backed mil­it­ary ac­tion — and has even said she does not be­lieve con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion was ne­ces­sary — told re­port­ers out­side the White House that she be­lieves rank-and-file law­makers will fol­low their lead­ers in sup­port “based on the evid­ence, the in­tel­li­gence, the na­tion­al in­terest that is at stake.”

For his part, Mc­Con­nell said the pub­lic would be­ne­fit from more in­form­a­tion about the pres­id­ent’s plans. Wheth­er Mc­Con­nell will take the same tack as Boehner re­mains un­clear.

“You likely won’t see the same swift push by Sen­ate lead­ers as you saw today in the House,” said a Sen­ate GOP aide.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.