While it may increasingly be a matter of when, and not whether, the United States will press ahead with a “limited” military strike against Syria, the Obama administration is facing some domestic headwinds with the Congress demanding that President Obama first get its approval.
Obama, in a television interview, made the case for a “tailored” military operation to punish and deter Syria, asserting that the Bashar al-Assad regime did attack with chemical weapons and suggesting it was now payback time.
“We have concluded that the Syrian Government in fact carried these out. And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences,” Obama told PBS’s “News Hour”. But he said he has not yet made a decision on a military strike, stressing that any operation, if decided upon, would be limited in scope and duration.
“I have no interest in any kind of open-ended conflict in Syria,” he said, while conceding that a lot of people are worried that the US might get drawn into another long conflict like the one in Iraq.
Asked what a limited offensive that does not do much harm to Assad regime would achieve in the final analysis, Obama said if “we send a shot across the bow saying, stop doing this”, it might still have a positive impact, preventing renewed use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians. Obama’s persuasive case for a limited offensive notwithstanding, pressure was fast building on Capitol Hill, with as many as 116 lawmakers, mostly Republicans but 18 Democrats as well, dashing off a letter, asking him to first seek Congressional approval before embarking on any military action. The Congress is now in the midst of its summer recess, but the lawmakers said it could be reconvened to consider the matter, they said.
Disapproving of any presidential intervention without Congressional clearance, they said in their letter: “Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.” “If you deem that military action in Syria is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request. We stand ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions made regarding US involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict,” the lawmakers wrote.
House Speaker John Boehner has also sent a letter to Obama, asking him to make his case to Congress and the public about how military action would “secure American national security interests, preserve America’s credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy”. He has also said it was essential to legally justify the use of force.
Word has since come from the White House that senior administration officials would hold a detailed briefing for lawmakers later on Thursday.
An official said the administration will brief the congressional leadership of both parties as well as the chairs and ranking members of the relevant national-security subcommittees.
The Obama administration has reacted sharply to Russia’s rejection of the British-sponsored resolution pushing for “necessary measures to protect civilians”, saying Moscow cannot hold up a suitable response to the Syrian chemical attack.
“We see no avenue forward, given continued Russian opposition to any meaningful Council action on Syria,” State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf said, adding: “We cannot be held up in responding by Russia’s continued intransigence at the United Nations, and quite frankly the situation is so serious that it demands a response.” Obama himself, in his TV interview, laid out the legal justification for a US response, saying that Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons is a violation of the Geneva Protocol.