Republican agree to Obama's war strategy

Obama hints at larger strategy to topple Assad in effort to win over Republicans
President suggests strikes could lead to longer-term mission as tough White House rhetoric begins to win over Republicans

The Guardian,

3 September, 2013

Barack Obama portrayed his plans for US military action in Syria as part of a broader strategy to topple Bashar al-Assad, as tougher White House rhetoric began to win over sceptical Republicans in Congress on Tuesday.

While stressing that Washington's primary goal remained "limited and proportional" attacks, to degrade Syria's chemical weapons capabilities and deter their future use, the president hinted at a broader long-term mission that may ultimately bring about a change of regime.

"It also fits into a broader strategy that can bring about over time the kind of strengthening of the opposition and the diplomatic, economic and political pressure required – so that ultimately we have a transition that can bring peace and stability, not only to Syria but to the region," he told senior members of Congress at a White House meeting on Tuesday.

Obama has long spoken of the US desire to see Assad step down, but this is the first time he has linked that policy objective to his threatened military strikes against Syria. It follows pressure on Monday, from senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, to make such a goal more explicit.

The apparent change of emphasis appeared to resolve some of the political deadlock on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, as House speaker John Boehner and a series of other Republican leaders announced that they would back the president's call for military authorisation from Congress. House majority leader Eric Cantor was most explicit, calling for the US to take sides in the "sectarian proxy war" against Iran.

"A well-designed and well-executed strike that deters the use of chemical weapons and diminishes the capacity of the Assad regime can contribute to the achievement of a clear and attainable goal: the ultimate displacement of the Assad regime by moderate elements within the opposition," he said in a statement.

The endorsement of GOP leaders could be important in winning over the Republican-controlled House, where Obama has failed to win any support since his re-election in November. But even the Republican leadership has struggled to control Tea Party radicals in the House, and an anti-interventionist wing in the Senate led by Rand Paul remains a substantial challenge for the White House.

"I'm going to support the president's call for action, and I believe my colleagues should support the president's call for action," Boehner said after meeting the president at the White House. "The use of these weapons has to be responded to, and only the United States has the capability and the capacity to stop Assad and to warn others around the world that this type of behaviour is not to be tolerated."

So far, the tougher US rhetoric does not seem to have deterred Democrats who back the president's call for military action on humanitarian grounds. Emerging from the White House meeting shortly after Boehner, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said Syria's alleged used of chemical weapons was "outside the circle of acceptable human behaviour", but said she would not whip Democrats into voting yes.

"I don't think congressional authorisation is necessary, but I do think it is a good thing, and I think we can achieve it," she added.

In his televised remarks, Obama repeated the US's conclusion that Syria was responsible for chemical attacks on its own citizens. "We have high confidence that Syria used, in an indiscriminate fashion, chemical weapons that killed thousands of people," he said. "That poses a serious national security threat to the United States and to the region and, as a consequence, Assad and Syria needs to be held accountable."

With the chances of successful votes in Congress next week looking a little stronger, Obama will now head to Europe in the hope of persuading more world leaders to back his strategy. He arrives in Sweden on Wednesday for a short visit before attending the G20 international summit in St Petersburg, where he will face a frosty reception from his Russian hosts.

President François Hollande of France called on Europe's leaders to unite over Syria, but hopes in Washington that Britain might hold a fresh parliamentary vote over joining military action were dashed on Monday, when prime minister David Cameron ruled out such a move.

The White House first announced that it would provide limited military support to Syrian rebel groups in June, but it has been criticised for dragging its heels over fears that arms might fall into the wrong hands.

The alleged chemical attacks by Assad forces now seem to have strengthened the hands of those in Washington who favour more direct assistance. The New York Times reported on Tuesday that CIA-trained rebels were now operating inside Syria.

Congress moves to approve Syria strike

Obama’s battle to get congressional approval for a military strike on Syria moved a step closer Tuesday, with leaders of both parties in Congress announcing that the United States should respond to Syrian President Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

RT,

3 September, 2013

President Obama convinced leaders of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to support his request for the authorization of a military strike on Syria. After a meeting with more than a dozen senior lawmakers, members of both parties went public, praising Obama's plan and pledging a 'yes' vote on the operation against the Syrian government.

John Boehner, the Republican House Speaker, after coming out of a meeting in the White House told reporters why the United States should get behind the president. 

“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," he said.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor also said that they will both support actions against the Assad government. 

Obama had been meeting more than a dozen lawmakers in the White House Cabinet Room to push for limited strikes to dismantle Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons in the future. 

The president is confident he can persuade a skeptical American public that Syria is not Afghanistan or Iraq, and that US military action will be a “limited, proportionate step.” 

Boehner said that only the US has the capability to stop Assad. He was the only Republican to speak to reporters after the White House meeting. 

“We have enemies around the world that need to understand we’re not going to tolerate this type of behavior. We also have allies around the world and allies in the region who also need to know that America will be there and stand up when it’s necessary,” he added.

His views were echoed by Eliot Engel, the top Democrat to attend the White House meeting from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. 

“We are talking about weapons of mass destruction. This is war crime. If we didn’t respond in kind it would send a message to every despot, every thug, every dictator, every terrorist group in the world that you can murder your own citizens with impunity and nothing is going to happen,” he said.

But after over a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the polls show that Americans are opposed to any new overseas military intervention.  This reluctance is reflected by senators and representatives who believe Obama still hasn’t produced concrete evidence that it was Assad who used chemical weapons on August 21 or why it is in America's interest to intervene.

Justin Amash, a Republican for Michigan, tweeted that he has been talking to his constituents and armed forces personnel, neither of whom have the stomach for military action in Syria. 

Justin Amash       
✔
‪@repjustinamash

Читать

I've been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces. The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against ‪#Syria.

10:19 утра - 1 сентября 2013

660 РЕТВИТОВ 185 ИЗБРАННЫХ

"I've been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces," Amash tweeted. "The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria."

Rick Nolan, a Democrat for Minnesota, also said that he would strongly oppose any military action. 

“I am vehemently opposed to a military strike that would clearly be an act of war against Syria, especially under such tragic yet confusing circumstances as to who is responsible for the use of chemical weapons,” he said. 

Skepticism is shared by many Tea Party Republicans and others on the right and left who oppose military intervention for ideological reasons and for specific reasons on authorizing the use of force without constraints on timing, costs, and the scope of the attack. 

Senator Rand Paul also said he would vote against any resolution. 

“Who is on America’s side over there? If the rebels win, will they be American allies? Assad’s definitely not. I’m not convinced anybody on the Islamic side will be American allies,” he said. 

He also warned that it wouldn’t be helpful to amend any resolution that constrains Obama too much to execute military action, something that some lawmakers are calling for. 

Rand’s views were echoed by Tim Kaine, a Democrat for Virginia, who said that limits on the scope of military action may be necessary. 

“I’m stickler about Congress having to weigh in about the initiation of military action. But the Commander in Chief, we really have to him some latitude to implement,” said Kaine. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat for Nevada, and Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Menendez have said that they want to craft a resolution narrower than the broad one proposed by the administration on Saturday. 

The proposed measure would limit the duration of any military action and expressly state that no US ground forces would be used. 

Obama has said he is open to changing the language to address lawmakers' concerns, but has stated that he wants a prompt vote. 

“So long as we are accomplishing what needs to be accomplished, which is to send a clear message to Assad, to degrade his capabilities to use chemical weapons, not just now but also in the future, as long as the authorization allows us to do that, I'm confident that we're going to be able to come up with something that hits that mark," Obama said.

Other lawmakers are still on the fence. New kid on the block Trey Radel, a Republican for Florida, said that he still hasn't made up his mind. 

“Being new here, I'm very skeptical of Republicans and Democrats that have dragged us into wars of the past. Still today, when we look at Afghanistan and Iraq, I am questioning: What is the end goal within these countries? What have we accomplished with so many lives being lost?" he told reporters.