Amid signs that President Barack Obama is gradually gaining bipartisan support in US Congress for his proposed military strike against Syria, a Senate panel has come up with a draft resolution setting a 60-day limit for the operation, with a possible one-time extension of 30 days, and barring deployment of US ground troops in the war-torn nation.
The draft, hammered out by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after a hearing on Tuesday, was to be put to a committee vote later on Wednesday. The measure, expected to be approved by the committee, would then head for a debate and vote by the full Senate next week.
Obama’s push for limited strike received a shot in the arm with Republican Speaker John Boehner and House Majority leader Eric Cantor coming out in support of the plan, giving rise to growing confidence within the administration over the chances of securing Congressional nod.
While endorsement by the Democrats-controlled Senate has all along been taken for granted, it is the vote by the Republican-controlled House that would be watched closely.
Obama’s persuasive case may be winning over political opponents, but the American public opinion still remains skeptical. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll, released on Wednesday, notes that as many as 59 per cent still oppose the US launch of punitive missile strikes against Syria, with only 36 per cent backing the plan.
The Senate panel’s draft use-of-force resolution, drawn up by Democratic chairman Robert Menendez and Republican ranking member Bob Corker, supports Obama’s call for “limited, proportional” attacks on the Assad regime for its alleged chemical attacks.
It also requires Obama to consult with Congress on a strategy to negotiate a political settlement to the Syria conflict, including a review of all forms of assistance to the rebels fighting to oust Assad. This provision has been incorporated at the instance of top Republican Senator John McCain and some others.
The draft permits a single 30-day extension beyond the initial 60 days, provided the Congress does not pass a resolution disapproving the extension. “Together we have pursued a course of action that gives the President the authority to deploy force in response to the Assad regime’s criminal use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, while assuring that the authorisation is narrow and focused, limited in time, and assures that the Armed Forces of the United States will not be deployed for combat operations in Syria,” Menendez said in a statement.
Corker said the negotiations have led to “a much narrower authorisation that provides for the appropriate use of force while limiting the scope and duration of military action, prohibiting boots on the ground, and requiring the Obama administration to submit their broader plan for Syria”.
The House of Representatives is planning to come up with its own variant of the military authoriasation. Once passed, the two versions will have to be reconciled before they can be submitted for presidential assent.
At Tuesday’s hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama’s top team, comprising Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and military chief General Martin Dempsey, made a strong case for undertaking the military offensive in order to deter the Assad regime from further chemical attacks and to degrade its capacity.
At the hearing, Republican Senators Rand Paul, James Risch and Jeff Flake were among those to raise a series of pointed questions. So did Democratic Senators Chris Murphy, Tom Udall and Ed Markey.
Kerry argued that if the US opted not to conduct a punitive missile strike, it would embolden the Assad regime to launch further chemical attacks. Calling sceptics of military action “armchair isolationists”, he said President Obama was not asking America to go to war, but had only proposed a limited, narrow strike to punish and deter the Assad regime.