The Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Senate agreed on Tuesday on a draft resolution to support the use of force in Syria authorizing military action for 60 days and the prohibition against sending troops to that country. This resolution comes too little too late, since the United States has already put boots on the ground with a combination of military forces, CIA operatives and a large group of terrorist rebels who invaded Syria to fight the Government’s Army.
The text of the resolution was agreed upon hours after Obama achieve the support of key Republican leaders. Among them, John Boehner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. These three congressional ‘leaders’ had partially withdrawn their support for military action in Syria after Obama said the attack would be ‘short and sweet’. IT begs the question whether Obama backpedaled again and caved into the calls for an open war in Syria.
Yesterday, news circulated that Obama’s draft intended to leave the door open for a broader role in the war against Syria. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), not only called for more actions than simply firing some tomahawk missiles, but also read as a blank cheque for the Obama administration to engage the conflict in any way, should Obama or his cabinet believed it was necessary.
According to the original text, “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to…”
The surprise element here is not what the text says, but what it does not say. It does not limit the approach or scope of the military action led by the US military in Syria at all.
The draft text leaves the door open for Congress to extend military actions for an additional 30 days of military operations in Syria, which opens the door for Congress and the US president — who said he did not need congressional approval to hit Syria — to at the very least keep on extending military operations in the African country.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that an intervention without UN support will be considered an ” aggression ” and said he would not rule out supporting an attack on Syria if there was strong evidence that the Assad government indeed used chemical weapons.
As things stand today, not only there is no proof of such a thing, but there is proof that the United States and its allies are responsible for the acquisition and use of chemical weapons by the Syrian rebels. Putin ‘s statement came on the eve of the start of the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia,where it is expected that a possible military intervention in Syria dominates the agenda.
While U.S. President Barack Obama landed this morning in Stockholm, where he will meet with European leaders to address the Syrian issue and from where he will deliver an early afternoon press conference, the resolution drafted in Washington, which could be adopted in the Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday before moving on to consideration by the full Congress, explicitly prohibits the deployment of ground troops except for small rescue missions in an emergency. Does anyone doubt that such missions may occur in a war scenario?
Also, the legislature would require Obama a plan within 30 days after the final adoption of the resolution with a “diplomatic solution to end the violence in Syria”, in line with the White House’s commitment not to engage in Syrian civil war for a long time and continue to seek a political solution to the conflict.
This request is not only unrealistic but also naive. The United States government and the actions of its allies in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, are the reasons why all those countries suffer from the consequences of war. The US is more than engaged in all the wars now being fought in the Middle East; it is heavily invested in them.
Hours before agreeing to adopt the text, the committee held a hearing nearly four hours long with the Secretary of State, John Kerry, Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, and the head of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, to discuss the need for a response to the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, who they say, has killed more than 1,400 people with chemical weapons. This is something that needs to be proven by Washington and the other war monger powers of the Western world..
If the committee, chaired by Sen. Robert Menendez adopted the resolution, the vote in the full Senate will be in early next week. Then, the resolution will move on to the House of Representatives, where most Republicans and Democrats now favor military action against Syria.