Obama Pushes for Strike on Syria As Opposition Rises at Home

Daily News Article — Posted on September 10, 2013

Obama_Syria (by Carol E. Lee and Kristina Peterson, The Wall Street Journal) WASHINGTON – In a week poised to define his second term, President Barack Obama will mount an intensive campaign to promote a U.S. military strike on Syria as opposition rises in both Congress and across the country.

Mr. Obama will make his case repeatedly in coming days to Americans wary of opening a new military front in the Middle East, including [during 6] interviews set for Monday and a nationally televised address Tuesday evening. He also is sending aides to hold closed-door intelligence briefings for members of Congress about the alleged gassing deaths of more than 1,400 Syrian civilians by the forces of President Bashar al-Assad.

Mr. Obama’s top challenge, as Congress return Monday [yesterday] from summer recess, will be to find backing from enough lawmakers for a resolution authorizing a strike. He faces an unusual alliance seeking to block military action, one comprised of the president’s closest allies among liberal Democrats – including members of the Congressional Black Caucus – and his most strident critics among Republicans.

The administration’s argument is that the U.S. case that Mr. Assad’s forces used chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack is now settled – an assertion that Mr. Assad denied in an interview [that aired yesterday] with Charlie Rose of PBS and CBS.

“We are no longer debating whether it happened or whether it didn’t happen,” White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said on CNN, part of a blitz of television interviews Sunday. “Congress has an opportunity this week to answer a simple question: Should there be consequences for him for having used that material?”

Mr. Obama will also go to Capitol Hill Tuesday to meet with Senate Democrats, a Senate Democratic aide said.

The Senate is expected to vote this week on a resolution authorizing Mr. Obama to use force in Syria. The current resolution, which could be amended, backs a military mission designed, in part, to change the momentum of the Syrian civil war and set the stage for Mr. Assad’s departure.

But it isn’t clear whether Congress – particularly the House, where Mr. Obama faces a more ominous battle – will back such a measure. Many lawmakers have said they oppose the resolution as too broad, and their contention likely was bolstered during the recess as they heard constituents back home voice concern. The House isn’t expected to vote before next week.

After a week of intense White House lobbying on Capitol Hill following Mr. Obama’s surprise decision to seek authorization from Congress for a military strike, some lawmakers say they remain unsure who was responsible for the alleged chemical-weapons attack or remain unconvinced a strike would be the appropriate response.

Liberal Democrat Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) suggested the president withdraw the resolution. “I don’t believe the support is there in Congress,” he said on CNN.

Even those who have said they back a resolution express concern about the president’s ability to pull off a successful vote. “It’s an uphill slog from here,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R., Mich.) said Sunday on CBS, calling the administration’s lobbying of lawmakers belated.

Mr. Rogers said the president should have called Congress back for a debate over Syria instead of leaving the country for the G-20 meetings last week in Russia. “It’s very clear he’s lost support in the last week,” Mr. Rogers said.

White House officials, including Mr. Obama, have argued that if Congress fails to pass a resolution the U.S. will be seen as less credible on the international stage and adversaries such as Iran and the Lebanese-based militant political group Hezbollah would be emboldened.

The White House has left open the possibility that Mr. Obama would proceed with military action if a vote in Congress fails. Administration officials also haven’t ruled out presidential action if the House and Senate pass different resolutions yet are unable to agree on a compromise measure, but say it is too early to consider such a scenario. …

Part of the White House effort to persuade Congress to approve a strike includes trying to show that the president has a cadre of international support. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with members of the European Union and Arab League over the weekend, and said that both groups support parts of the U.S. position. Neither, however, has explicitly endorsed U.S. military strikes.

Many lawmakers returning to Washington will attend their first classified briefings on Syria this week, raising hope among administration officials that intelligence information will sway undecided members. They likely will be shown graphic videos detailing the effects of the alleged chemical attack on victims.

Most lawmakers remain publicly undecided, while many Republican lawmakers have said they are leaning toward opposing military action. “The president has not made his case,” one of them, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) said on CNN.

A strike is backed by both House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.). …

Underscoring the stakes for his presidency, Mr. Obama has done the kind of personal outreach to lawmakers he has been criticized for eschewing since taking office.

Administration officials say they have reached out to at least 85 senators and more than 165 House members. Vice President Joe Biden hosted a dinner Sunday night with a group of Republican senators that Mr. Obama attended. On Monday Mr. Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and National Security Adviser Susan Rice [briefed] House members on U.S. intelligence assessments.

Mr. Obama’s high-stakes gamble to win congressional backing – after he was on the brink of launching a strike unilaterally – could lead to a humiliating defeat and deplete the president’s political capital as he turns to pushing his domestic agenda through Congress.

But the prospect of the president losing the Syria vote is so worrisome to some lawmakers – even some who oppose a strike – that the White House eventually may win support because of a desire to avoid the international humiliation of Congress rejecting the president.

—Janet Hook contributed to this article.

Questions

1. a) What is President Obama doing to convince Congress (and the American people, of whom over 70% oppose intervention in Syria) to support his call for a military strikes against the Assad regime? Be specific.
b) What arguments is President Obama using to get the support of Congress and the American people? Be specific.

2. Why is President Obama's attempt to get the support of Congress such a challenge?

3. a) Why are the majority of Democratic and Republican members of Congress expected to vote against military action on Syria?
b) For what reason might members of Congress vote in support of President Obama even though they oppose a military strike?

4. A CNN poll released yesterday shows that even though eight in 10 Americans believe that Bashar al-Assad's regime gassed its own people, a strong majority doesn't want Congress to pass a resolution authorizing a military strike against it.
More than 70% of Americans say such a strike would not achieve significant goals for the United States and a similar amount say it's not in the national interest for the country to get involved in Syria's civil war.
a) Do you agree with the majority of Americans on these two points? Explain your answer.
b) Ask a parent the same question.

5. What does Rep. Mike Rogers (Repub.-MI) chairman of the House Intelligence Committee say is the reason for President Obama not having the support he needs in Congress?

6. How is President Obama expected to respond if Congress does not vote to authorize a military strike against Assad?

7. Read the comments below made by a Republican and a Democrat:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich. said it's "an uphill slog" for President Obama to get enough lawmakers on board to authorize his request for military intervention in Syria. "They really needed to start two years ago on this process and really haven't done it, so they don't have strong relationships in Congress today," Rogers said of the administration. "And, candidly, [they] have done an awful job explaining to the American people what is in our national security interests in any level of engagement in a place like Syria."

Rogers said he backs a "very limited" strike in the civil war-torn country amid mounting evidence that President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. But the President's campaign for such a move - including his surprise announcement during August recess to seek congressional approval, a move typically reserved for boots-on-the-ground scenarios - has been "mystifying." "I completely understand why people are skeptical of this," Rogers said. "You have a reluctant commander-in-chief, first of all, who's trying to come to the American people and say, 'I'm going to do something but I'm not going to do a lot; I'm not sure exactly what we're trying to do.' I mean, that's what the American people are hearing. And hearing that, I'm skeptical as well."

Though feedback from his constituents has been overwhelmingly against striking Syria, Rogers said, his vote on the resolution "cannot be about Barack Obama; it has to be about what is in the best interests of the United States of America. "...If we just make it about us," he said, "being Congress or the American people, against our frustrations against this president, we miss the big picture about what is in the best interests of U.S. national security interests. Small and effective now save big and ugly later. So we're either going to pay this price now or we're going to pay a bigger price later.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., always a big supporter of the President, said there is "no doubt about it," that the bulk of Americans oppose U.S. involvement in Syria. Cummings said "it's possible" he could still get behind the president's request. "He's got to show, first of all, that this is in our core national security interests, and why it is," Cummings said. "He's got to show that if we don't completely degrade Assad's capability, how do we make sure we still deter him from using these chemical weapons? And then he's got to show us that this will not end up in a scenario where we are finding ourselves in deeper involvement in a civil war over there in Syria. These are difficult issues he's got."

Do you think the expectations of these two congressmen are reasonable? Explain your answer.

CHALLENGE QUESTION: Watch President Obama's address to the nation tonight. Do you think he adequately makes the case for military intervention in Syria? Explain your answer.

Background

Adding to Mr. Obama's challenges, Mr. Assad waded into the debate by denying in the interview with Mr. Rose that he had anything to do with the alleged chemical-weapons attack and saying he didn't even know whether one had taken place.

Mr. Assad refused to say whether Syria has chemical weapons, but he said any weapons would be under government control, Mr. Rose said in describing the interview that aired Monday. At the same time, Mr. Assad repeated his suggestion that the Syrian opposition may have been behind the alleged attack, a charge the U.S. and opposition leaders deny. Additionally, Mr. Assad suggested there would be a response if the U.S. launches a strike, Mr. Rose said. (from the WSJ article above)