This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

The article has changed 15 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 10 Version 11
Obama Will Seek Syria Vote in Congress Obama Will Seek Syria Vote in Congress
(about 1 hour later)
WASHINGTON — President Obama stunned the world and paused his march to battle on Saturday by asking Congress to give him authorization before he launches a limited military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack. WASHINGTON — President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress.
In an afternoon appearance in the Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said he had decided that the United States should use force but would wait for a vote from lawmakers, who are not due to return to town until Sept. 9. Mr. Obama said he believed he had the authority to act on his own, but he did not say whether he would if Congress rejects his plan. In one of the riskiest gambles of his presidency, Mr. Obama effectively dared lawmakers to either stand by him or, as he put it, allow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to get away with murdering children with unconventional weapons. By asking them to take a stand, Mr. Obama tried to break out of the isolation of the last week as he confronted taking action without the support of the United Nations, Congress, the public or Britain, a usually reliable partner in such international operations.
“I’m prepared to give that order,” Mr. Obama said. “But having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interest, I’m also mindful that I’m president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.” “I’m prepared to give that order,” Mr. Obama said in a hurriedly organized appearance in the Rose Garden as American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles waited in the Mediterranean Sea. “But having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”
Striking Syria with the support of the people’s representatives, he added, “I know the country will be stronger.” Although Congressional leaders hailed his decision to seek the permission of lawmakers who had been clamoring for a say, the turnabout leaves Mr. Obama at the political mercy of House Republicans, many of whom have opposed him at every turn and have already suggested that Syria’s civil war does not pose a threat to the United States. His decision raises the possibility that he would be the first president in modern times to lose a vote on the use of force, much as Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain did in Parliament last week.
The president’s announcement effectively dared Congress to either stand by him or, as he put it, allow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to get away with murdering children. By asking lawmakers to weigh in, he is trying to break out of his box of isolation of the last week, in the face of deep skepticism at home and around the world about the strike. His decision indicates he does not want to go forward without Congress and the American public. Mr. Obama overruled the advice of many of his aides who worried about just such a defeat, and Republican Congressional officials said Saturday that if a vote were taken immediately, the Republican-controlled House would not support action. Interviews with more than a dozen members of Congress made clear that the situation was volatile even in the Senate, where Democrats have a majority.
But it represents a major political gamble for a president with marginal command of Congress. Officials said he is likely to win support in the Senate, where leading Republicans quickly issued statements welcoming his decision, but the House is more of an open question given its strong current of antiwar sentiment in both parties. “Obama hasn’t got a chance to win this vote if he can’t win the majority of his own party, and I doubt he can,” Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a leading Republican, said in an interview. “Democrats have been conspicuously silent. Just about his only support is coming from Republicans. He is a war president without a war party.”
The decision also means that the period of vacillation before a strike will extend until after Mr. Obama travels to St. Petersburg, Russia, for a summit meeting of the Group of 20 nations, a session that now seems certain to be dominated by the question of what to do about Syria. Yet the debate may also put on display the divisions in the Republican Party between traditional national security hawks and a newer generation of lawmakers, particularly in the House, resistant to entanglements overseas and distrustful of Mr. Obama.
President Vladimir V. Putin, the host of the meeting, has not only effectively blocked United Nations action, but on Saturday he suggested the American intelligence blaming Mr. Assad’s government for the chemical attack was based on a ruse. “It will be an uphill battle for the president to convince me because I think he has handled this entire situation quite poorly,” said Representative Tim Griffin, Republican of Arkansas. “And frankly I am reluctant to give him a license for war when, with all due respect, I have little confidence he knows what he is doing.”
Opponents of military action hoped the extra time would give them a chance to stop another American intervention in a region that has entangled the country at great cost for a dozen years since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Even Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, two Republicans who have pressed Mr. Obama to intervene more aggressively in Syria, said Saturday that they might vote no because the president’s plan was too limited. “We cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield,” they said in a statement.
Supporters of a military strike worried that stretching out the decision process would make Mr. Obama look like he blinked and undercut American credibility. Against that backdrop, the wording of the authorization of force may be critical. White House officials drafted a proposed measure that tried to strike a balance between being too expansive and too restrictive, and sent it to Congress on Saturday evening.
“In the same presentation, he made a persuasive case for military action and then in a dramatic pivot put it at risk, too,” said Aaron David Miller, a longtime Middle East adviser to multiple presidents and now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. It “shows just how concerned he is about being alone and his understanding of the realities that even a limited strike can be risky, and he wants to share the responsibility.” The proposal would empower Mr. Obama to order military action to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of chemical or biological weapons “within, to or from Syria” and to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” Still, White House officials indicated that Mr. Obama might still authorize force even if Congress rejected it.
Mr. Obama spoke with the Democratic and Republican leaders of both houses before his announcement and said they agreed to schedule a debate and votes. The House leadership said it would stick to its schedule of resuming work the week of Sept. 9, but Senate leaders were considering coming back early, perhaps on Friday, for a weekend of debate, several senators said. As Syrian forces braced for attack, the president’s decision effectively put it off for more than a week, since Congress is not due back in Washington until Sept. 9. Mr. Obama did not push for Congress to come back sooner, and House leaders opted to keep to their schedule. Senate leaders were considering coming back on Friday for a weekend of debate.
Either way, Congressional leaders hailed the move without committing to supporting his request for authorization. In the interim, lawmakers will be in their home states, where polls show their constituents are not eager to attack Syria. “One constituent said to me: ‘It is horrendous that these children were killed, but they are being killed in other ways also. What’s the difference?’ “ said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine.
“We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised,” Speaker John A. Boehner said in a statement. Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, said public opinion would pose a challenge for the president and Congress. “I’d be very surprised if the position of going forward with the strike would reach 50 percent in our state,” he said. “I don’t think it would get to 50.”
Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, likewise welcomed the decision. “The president’s role as commander in chief is always strengthened when he enjoys the expressed support of the Congress,” he said. The move also means that the period of vacillation before a strike will extend until after Mr. Obama travels to St. Petersburg, Russia, for a summit meeting of the Group of 20 nations, a session that now seems certain to be dominated by the question of what to do about Syria. President Vladimir V. Putin, the host of the meeting, not only has effectively blocked United Nations action but on Saturday, he suggested the chemical attack was a provocation by rebels intended to draw the United States into their war against Mr. Assad.
As a candidate, Mr. Obama said a president “does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” But he did not ask Congress for permission when he backed a NATO military operation in Libya in 2011, unlike President George W. Bush who received legislative approval for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Presidents in modern times have used military force both with and without Congressional authorization. George Bush and George W. Bush both won votes from lawmakers before wars with Iraq, and Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton launched strikes against Libya, Afghanistan and Kosovo without asking permission.
The United States has carried out punitive raids without such Congressional authorization, including President Ronald Reagan’s 1986 raid on Libya and President Bill Clinton’s attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for the bombings of two American embassies in Africa in 1998. Although Mr. Obama said as a candidate that a president has no power to launch a military attack except to stop “an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” he acted unilaterally in Libya in 2011 and had no plans to act differently in Syria this time. But he found it much harder to proceed alone, given the British vote and polls showing that the vast majority of Americans want Congress to decide.
But those were surprise attacks, and the current operation is one of the most heavily telegraphed punitive attacks in recent history. Even allies like Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, one of Mr. Obama’s earliest supporters for president and his handpicked Democratic Party chairman, publicly argued that he had to go to Congress for permission. “The worst thing we can do is put people out on that limb and ask them to potentially risk their lives based on equivocal political support,” Mr. Kaine said.
Even as he made the request to Congress, Mr. Obama argued more forcefully than he ever had for military action, echoing some of the moral outrage expressed by Secretary of State John Kerry a day earlier. “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” Mr. Obama said. In making his request, Mr. Obama argued more forcefully than he ever had for military action against Syria, echoing some of the moral outrage expressed by Secretary of State John Kerry a day earlier. “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” the president asked.
To shore up support, the White House assigned Mr. Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and other top officials to brief both parties in the Senate by telephone on Saturday and scheduled a classified briefing in person on Capitol Hill on Sunday for any lawmakers in town. Mr. Obama also dispatched Mr. Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and others to brief senators by telephone on Saturday and authorized a classified briefing on Capitol Hill on Sunday. Mr. Kerry was also booked onto the Sunday television news programs to make the case.
But the administration had not convinced everyone. Mr. Putin argued that it was “simply utter nonsense” to believe Syria’s government would launch such an attack and challenged the United States to present any evidence to the United Nations. Aaron David Miller, a longtime Middle East adviser to presidents, said Mr. Obama had made a persuasive case for action even as he jeopardized it. It “shows just how concerned he is about being alone and his understanding of the realities that even a limited strike can be risky, and he wants to share the responsibility,” he said.
“I am convinced that it is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to involve other countries in the Syrian conflict, who want to gain the support of powerful members in international affairs, primarily, of course the United States,” Mr. Putin said in his first public remarks since reports of the chemical attack emerged. “I have no doubts about it.” A deeply divided Congress was already gearing up for bitter fights this fall over federal spending, the debt ceiling, immigration and government surveillance, and the surprise Syria vote will invite a complicated, multilayered debate crossing party lines and involving other actors like Israel supporters who worry that failure to follow through in Syria will embolden Iran.
United Nations inspectors left Syria on Saturday after four days of efforts to investigate the Aug. 21 attack. The inspectors were heading to The Hague with blood and urine samples taken from victims of the attack, as well as soil samples from areas where the attacks took place. The samples will be divided so each can be sent to at least two separate European laboratories for testing. Many lawmakers welcomed the chance to vote. “At this point in the country’s history, it’s important that we have this debate, that we take this vote,” said Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.
Angela Kane, the United Nations disarmament chief, briefed Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Saturday and reported that inspectors were “able to conduct a wide range of fact finding activities,” according to Martin Nesirky, the spokesman for the secretary general. Mr. Nesirky repeated that the inspectors’ mandate was to find out whether chemical weapons were used, not who was responsible. But some argued that Mr. Obama had blinked in the face of a tough choice and possible backlash, and abdicated responsibility. “I strongly believe that the commander in chief has the absolute right to take military action,” said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York. “The president seems like he’s weak at every level.”
Mr. Nesirky said the inspection team would not transmit its report to Mr. Ban until it received laboratory results and he offered no estimate of how long that would take but added that “whatever can be done to speed up the process is being done.” He added that Mr. Ban wants a political response. “A military solution is not an option,” he said.

Jennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Martin contributed reporting.

Obama administration officials argued that the United Nations findings would be redundant, since American intelligence had already concluded, based on human sources and electronic eavesdropping, that Mr. Assad’s government was responsible for launching nerve agents in the eastern suburbs of Damascus.

Reporting was contributed by Anne Barnard from Beirut, Lebanon; Jackie Calmes, Michael R. Gordon and Jonathan Weisman from Washington; Steven Lee Myers from Moscow; and Marc Santora from New York.