US Congress divided on authorizing proposed military strike on Syria

General Secertary of the Arab League (AL) Nabil al-Arabi (L), and Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy (C) attend a meeting of AL foreign ministers at the Arab League headquarters in Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 1, 2013. The Arab foreign ministers hold the Syrian government responsible for all the chemical attacks in the Syrian capital of Damascus, and asked for referring the perpetrators to international trials, Xinhua reported from the AL headquarters. (Photo : Xinhua/Amru Salahuddien)

The U.S. Congress is splitting on whether to give green light to Obama administration for launching a limited military strike on Syria, to punish Damascus for an alleged chemical attack that killed hundreds of people.

President Barack Obama on Saturday announced that though he has decided to take military action against Syrian government targets, he would seek Congress’s authorization first as demanded by some lawmakers. He stated the military operation will be “limited in duration and scope” and will not involve “boots on the ground.”

The White House on Saturday sent Congress a draft resolution that authorizes a U.S. military strike against Syria over the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian government in the suburbs of Damascus on Aug. 21.

The U.S. intelligence claimed that a total of 1,429 people were killed in the attack, including 426 children. The resolution stated the objective of a limited military strike on Syria should be to “deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade the potential” for future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

The Obama administration has begun a campaign to lobby Congress for passing the vote, as senior officials held classified briefing on Syria on Sunday with a group of ranking lawmakers from both Democratic and Republican parties.

Appearing on five major TV news shows Sunday morning, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry predicted that Congress would give its nod to the military strike, citing the stakes are really too high.
“We are not going to lose this vote,” he said.

However, Kerry was apparently too optimistic in foreseeing a smooth vote in both chambers of the U.S. Congress, as a battle line has already been drawn between those who support military intervention and those who are against, while many others remain skeptical.

Demonstrators hold a banner referring to U.S. President Barack Obama during a protest against possible U.S. forces' strike in Syria, in Cairo, Egypt, Sunday, Sept. 1, 2013. A top Syrian government official on Sunday dismissed the Obama administration as confused and hesitant, even as Secretary of State John Kerry said Washington has evidence of sarin gas use by Syria and that the case for a military attack is getting "stronger and stronger." (Photo : AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)

OPPONENTS SEE NO NEED FOR U.S. MILITARY INVOLVEMENT

The Obama administration is to face opposition from some anti-war conservatives, isolationists and Tea Party-backed Republicans in Congress. They remain skeptical about the need and success of military intervention in Syria, which poses no direct security threat to the U.S.

“I think it’s a mistake to get involved in the Syrian civil war,” said Republican senator Rand Paul, who is a potential candidate for the 2016 presidential election.

Republican Representative Scott Rigell, who urged Obama to seek Congressional approval before attacking Syria, said that he is always opposed to taking military action. “If I had to vote today, I would vote no,” he said.

Jim Inhofe, the ranking Republican senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told “Fox News Sunday” that he didn’t believe Congress would authorize the use of force. He warned that the military intervention in Syria could lead to a war in the Middle East.

Adam Smith, the Democrat ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, told CNN on Sunday that he is “skeptical” about whether or not the use of U.S. military force will accomplish its goal as the U.S. does not enjoy substantial support from the international community, including the United Nations and Arab League.

Charles Rangel, a Democratic Representative, told Fox News said that he doesn’t believe it would make sense for the U.S. to get involved in Syria without international support.

“I don’t really think war-like methods is the way to go,” Rangel said. “This is international. Bring together international people.”

SUPPORTERS CITE NATIONAL SECURITY AT STAKE

Some supporters in Congress expressed support for Obama’s decision to take military action to punish Syria for the use of chemical weapons, citing that U.S. national security is at stake. House’s Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid have voiced strong support to Obama over his decision on Syria response.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Republican, told CNN Sunday that he expected Congress to authorize a military strike on Syria as the evidence of chemical attack is powerful.

“I think at the end of the day Congress will rise to the occasion,” he said. “This is a national security issue.” Senator Tim Kaine, a Democratic, told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that he believed that Congress will support the government’s plan to punish the Assad government for the use of chemical weapons.

Democratic senator Chris Murphy also predicted Congress will pass the authorization for taking military action against Syria, while praising Obama’s decision to seek congressional approval as “the right move.”

Peter King, a Republican Representative, criticized Obama for not taking immediate action against Assad, while adding he would vote “yes” to authorize the use of force against Syrian government.

Senator John McCain, a ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he supported the military action against Syria, adding that he wants to see the real plan and strategy before voting “yes.”

Meanwhile, he urged Obama to expand the military strike to remove President Assad from power to eliminate the threat of continued use of chemical weapons.

A demonstrator holds a placard mimicking U.S. President Barack Obama during a protest against possible US forces' strike in Syria, in Cairo, Egypt, Sunday, Sept. 1, 2013. A top Syrian government official on Sunday dismissed the Obama administration as confused and hesitant, even as Secretary of State John Kerry said Washington has evidence of sarin gas use by Syria and that the case for a military attack is getting "stronger and stronger." (Photo : AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)

SKEPTICS CALL ON OBAMA TO MAKE A STRONGER CASE

Standing between supporters and opponents, some lawmakers take the middle ground. They said Obama and his administration should make a stronger case of resorting to the use of force against Syria so to convince them to support.

Democratic senator Jack Reed, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, acknowledged the Obama administration will have to work “diligently” to persuade lawmakers that involvement in Syria is in the country’s interest.

Saxby Chambliss, top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said if Obama cannot make his case to Congress, then he could vote against the authorization. He said Obama needs to provide “in-depth” explanations to the lawmakers on its intelligence and military strategy in Syria.

Jan Schakowsky, a Democratic Representative, praised Obama Saturday night for seeking congressional approval of his military plan on Syria, but avoiding a promise of support to the authorization vote.

“We need to determine the best way to respond to the heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria and how we can act effectively to protect civilians from further massacres,” Schakowsky said.<Xinhua/NEWSis>