White House, lawmakers huddle on Syria
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- NEW: Former President George W. Bush says Obama's "got a tough choice to make"
- The U.S. says it respects vote by the UK not to participate in a potential military strike
- It's "highly likely" Syria's regime is responsible for the chemical weapons attack, UK says
- Remember war dead before rushing to strike us, Syria warns British Parliament
Is the use of chemicals a "red line"? Should the West intervene? Send us your views
(CNN) -- The Obama administration will release
declassified intelligence Friday backing up a government assessment that
the Syrian regime was responsible for a chemical weapons attack, a
senior administration official said.
This comes amid talk
among major powers of a military response against the forces of Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad. The administration has said that the
information would be made public by the end of the week.
But diplomatic and
political developments this week raised the chances of the United States
going it alone in a military intervention.
Photos: Suspected chemical attack in Syria
White House's goal in Syria unclear
'We have to do something' about Syria
What steps will the U.S. take in Syria?
Global Open Mic: Syria
A U.N. Security Council
meeting on Syria ended in deadlock, and in the U.S. Congress, doubts
about military intervention are making the rounds.
And the United States'
closest ally, Great Britain, backed out of a possible coalition when its
lawmakers voted down a proposal on military intervention.
British Prime Minister
David Cameron said it is important for the United Kingdom to have a
"robust response to the use of chemical weapons, and there are a series
of things that (Britain) will continue to do."British involvement in a
military action "won't be happening," he said.
But diplomacy is
continuing. Speaking in televised comments aired Friday, Cameron said he
expects to speak to President Obama over the "next day or so."
On Friday afternoon, U.N.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon intends to consult with countries at the
United Nations on developments in Syria and is scheduled to meet with
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council at noon Friday.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is scheduled to speak about Syria at the State Department on Friday at 12:30 p.m. ET.
Alone or together?
After the British vote, a
senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told CNN that
going it alone was a real prospect.
"We care what they think. We value the process. But we're going to make the decision we need to make," the official said.
Former President George W. Bush said Obama's "got a tough choice to make."
"I was not a fan of Mr.
Assad. He's an ally of Iran, he's made mischief," he told Fox News on
Friday. "If he (Obama) decides to use the military, he's got the
greatest military in the world backing him up."
In a statement released
Friday, former President Jimmy Carter said "a punitive military response
without a U.N. Security Council mandate or broad support from NATO and
the Arab League would be illegal under international law and unlikely to
alter the course of the war."
A former director of the CIA says he believes Obama would face off with al-Assad alone.
"I can't conceive he would back down from a very serious course of action," retired Gen. Michael Hayden told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's response to the vote was more diplomatic.
The United States
respects the results, he told journalists in Manila, the Philippines.
"Every nation has a responsibility to make their own decisions."
The United States will continue to consult with the British government and still hope for "international collaboration."
"Our approach is to continue to find an international coalition that will act together," he said.
The government of France
supports military intervention, if evidence incriminates the government
of using poison gas against civilians.
McCain: Syria is different from Iraq
UK lawmakers say 'No' to military action
What intel does U.S. have on Syria?
Syrian group claims it hacked NY Times
But on Friday, President
Francois Hollande told French newspaper Le Monde that intervention
should be limited and not include al-Assad's overthrow.
Public opinion
Skeptics of military
action have pointed at the decision to use force in Iraq, where the
United States government under Bush marched to war based on a thin claim
that former dictator Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass
destruction.
Opponents are conjuring
up a possible repeat of that scenario in Syria, though the intelligence
being gathered on the use of WMDs in Syria may be more sound.
Half of all Americans
say they oppose possible U.S. military action against Syria, according
to an NBC News survey released Friday.
Nearly eight in 10 of
those questioned say Obama should be required to get congressional
approval before launching any military attack against al-Assad's forces
The poll, conducted
Wednesday and Thursday, indicates that 50% of the public says the United
States should not take military action against Damascus in response to
the Syrian government's alleged use of chemical weapons against its own
citizens, with 42% saying military action is appropriate.
But the survey suggests
that if any military action is confined to air strikes using cruise
missiles, support rises. Fifty percent of a smaller sample asked that
question say they support such an attack, with 44% opposing a cruise
missile attack meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that
have been used to carry out chemical attacks.
"Only 25% of the
American people support military action in Syria," former U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson told CNN's Piers Morgan
on Thursday.
Convincing evidence
To shake off the specter
of the Iraq war, the public needs convincing that chemical weapons were
used and that al-Assad's regime was behind it.
"You have to have almost incontrovertible proof," Richardson told CNN's Piers Morgan on Thursday.
It's there, said Arizona
Sen. John McCain, and will be visible soon. He thinks that comparisons
to Iraq are overblown and that doubts are unfounded.
"Come on. Does anybody
really believe that those aren't chemical weapons -- those bodies of
those children stacked up?" the Republican senator asked Morgan.
Al-Assad's government
has claimed that jihadists fighting with the opposition carried out the
chemical weapons attacks on August 21 to turn global sentiments against
it.
McCain doesn't buy it.
"The rebels don't have those weapons," he said.
The president also needs
to assure Congress that a possible intervention would not get out of
hand, said Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.
"The action has to have a very limited purpose, and the purpose is to deter future use of chemical weapons," he said.
Haunted by Iraq
The parliamentarians in London shot down the proposal in spite of intelligence allegedly incriminating the Assad government.
Britain's Joint
Intelligence Committee has concluded it was "highly likely" that Syrian
government forces used poison gas outside Damascus last week in an
attack that killed at least 350 people, according to a summary of the
committee's findings released Thursday.
A yes vote would not have sent the UK straight into a deployment.
Cameron had said his
government would not act without first hearing from the U.N. inspectors
and giving Parliament another chance to vote on military action. But his
opposition seemed to be reminded of the Iraq war.
"I think today the House
of Commons spoke for the British people who said they didn't want a
rush to war, and I was determined we learned the lessons of Iraq, and
I'm glad we've made the prime minister see sense this evening," Labour
Party leader Ed Miliband told the Press Association.
The no vote came after a long day of debate, and it appeared to catch Cameron and his supporters by surprise.
For days, the prime
minister has been sounding a call for action, lending support to talk of
a U.S.- or Western-led strike against Syria.
"I strongly believe in
the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also
believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons," the prime
minister said.
"We will not be taking
part in military action," Cameron said Friday. "The British Parliament
has spoken very, very clearly," he said.
Though Cameron did not
need parliamentary approval to commit to an intervention, he felt it
important "to act as a democrat, to act a different way to previous
prime ministers and properly consult Parliament," he said Friday.
He regrets not being able to build a consensus of lawmakers, he said.
Letter from al-Assad
Before the vote, Syria's
government offered its own arguments against such an intervention. In
an open letter to British lawmakers, the speaker of Syria's parliament
riffed on British literary hero William Shakespeare, saying: "If you
bomb us, shall we not bleed?"
But the letter also
invoked Iraq, a conflict justified on the grounds that Iraq had amassed
stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was working toward a
nuclear bomb -- claims that were discovered to have been false after the
2003 invasion.
"Those who want to send
others to fight will talk in the Commons of the casualties in the Syrian
conflict. But before you rush over the cliffs of war, would it not be
wise to pause? Remember the thousands of British soldiers killed and
maimed in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the hundreds of thousands
of Iraqi dead, both in the war and in the continuing chaos."
British Commons Speaker John Bercow published the letter.
U.N. deadlock
Lack of support for military intervention at the United Nations on Thursday was less of a surprise.
Russia, which holds a
permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, is one of Syria's closest
allies and is most certain to veto any resolution against al-Assad's
government that involves military action.
Moscow reiterated the stance Friday.
"Russia is against any
resolution of the U.N. Security Council, which may contain an option for
use of force," Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said Friday.
A closed-door Security
Council meeting called by Russia ended with no agreement on a resolution
to address the growing crisis in Syria, a Western diplomat told CNN's
Nick Paton Walsh on condition of anonymity.
U.N. weapons inspectors
are now in Syria trying to confirm the use of chemical weapons. The
inspectors are expected to leave the country by Saturday morning.
They are to brief U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who, in turn, will swiftly brief the Security Council on the findings.
Congressional jitters
The president is facing
doubts at home as well: More than 160 members of Congress, including 63
Democrats, have now signed letters calling for either a vote or at least
a "full debate" before any U.S. action.
The author of one of
those letters, Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee of California, said Obama
should seek "an affirmative decision of Congress" before committing
American forces.
More than 90 members of
Congress, most of them Republican, signed another letter by GOP Rep.
Scott Rigell of Virginia. That letter urged Obama "to consult and
receive authorization" before authorizing any such military action.
Congress is in recess until September 9.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama was still weighing a potential response to the chemical weapons attacks.
The president has said that he is not considering a no-fly zone and has ruled out U.S. boots on the ground in Syria.
Al-Assad has vowed to defend his country against any outside attack.
No comments:
Post a Comment