Skepticism Runs Deep Among Lawmakers Pressed for Syria Action

By Naureen Khan, Al Jazeera America

02 September 13

Members of Congress brace for divisive vote as White House lobbies aggressively for Syria strikes.

oubts were widespread among lawmakers this weekend as the White House pressed for limited strikes against Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons.

Dozens of members of Congress returned to Capitol Hill Sunday, interrupting their five-week summer recess, to attend a classified briefing held by senior administration officials on the White House's military strategy and its rationale for the use of force.

President Barack Obama surprised many when he asked for congressional authorization Saturday to launch a military offensive, when it had appeared for days that he was poised to make the call on his own.

His decision came after weeks of lawmakers pushing for debate and a vote in Congress, and as it became clear that there would be no United Nations resolution, and that usually stalwart ally Britain would not be involved in the campaign.

The Syrian civil war has raged for two years and claimed 100,000 lives, but many lawmakers and experts doubt whether U.S. military engagement would stanch the bloodshed.

"The question is, is military action actually going to make the situation better on the ground for the Syrian people and how do you make sure this doesn't escalate into something much more damaging and much more bloody within the region?" said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Although Obama made an impassioned moral plea Saturday to not let the gassing of hundreds of children go unpunished, the administration has conceded that the strikes would send a mostly symbolic message in attempt to deter President Bashar al-Assad and other dictators from using such weapons again. Administration officials said regime change is not the goal.

Punting the decision to Congress looks to be a risky play by President Obama as his credibility rests in the hands of a body that has been loath to give him anything he wants in the last six years.

"If he can't bring the Congress on board, it would weaken him internationally, it would weaken him domestically," said Gordon Adams, professor of foreign policy at American University. "On the other hand, he doesn't want to fight a two-front war, one war with Syria and the other one with Congress."

Both allies of the president and Republicans, who have traditionally been more willing to exert the U.S.'s military power, have been reticent to endorse the administration's plans, in part remembering the albatross hung around lawmakers 10 years ago after Congress overwhelmingly authorized President George W. Bush to launch the War in Iraq.

Many say they need to learn more before they make up their minds. President Obama and White House officials are holding meetings through the weekend and both the House and the Senate will begin hearings this week. A vote is to be held in both chambers no later than the week of Sept. 9 -- the first week lawmakers are back in session.

"There are profound issues in play here. Once a strike is launched, if one is launched, the sequence of events that will follow carry with them great risk and great uncertainty," Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., told the Washington Post. "That's what I'll be working through."

Rigell, who spearheaded an effort to convince the president to seek congressional approval, said he is currently leaning toward a "no" vote.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said in a statement that the classified briefing "quite frankly raised more questions than it answered."

"What I hear from Iowans is that the Middle East has a complex history and the conflicts there will not be solved by U.S. military action alone," he said. "We should not rush into what may become a new open-ended war without broad international backing or a full understanding of the ramifications."