As I speculated yesterday, putting Syrian chemical weapons under International control has taken off as a potential “negotiated” solution which could avoid a US strike.
The speed with which the suggestion of international control has been taken on by so many of the parties including Syria (but excluding Al Qaida and the various opposition groups) is – I think – encouraging. But the message from the Obama administration is now incredibly mixed. Instead of giving the impression of an iron fist in a velvet glove the prevailing impression is of Obama having gone too far and now scrambling to avoid implementing a strike.
Even the Senate majority leader felt it necessary to delay any vote in the Senate. Members of Congress were also highly irritated by Kerry’s statement yesterday that the strike would be “unbelievably small”. This must have stung their egos — since of course nothing the Congress votes for can be for anything “unbelievably small”!
Support for President Obama’s call for military airstrikes in Syria is sliding on Capitol HIll.
President Obama’s push for congressional approval for military airstrikes in Syria ran aground Monday, forcing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to delay a procedural vote as opposition builds among senators in both parties.
Six senators, including five Republicans and one Democrat, announced Monday they would vote against a resolution authorizing the use of force — a strong indication that the administration’s efforts to build bipartisan support have been ineffective.
The Senate was scheduled to vote Wednesday on a procedural motion to begin formal debate on the resolution, but Reid announced late Monday the vote would be delayed in order to buy the president more time to make his case to senators and the public.
“What we need to do is make sure the president has the opportunity to speak to all 100 senators and all 300 million American people before we do this,” Reid said.
The delay also came amid reports that Russia was seeking a deal with Syria to dismantle its chemical weapons program. Obama said in television interviews Monday such a deal could circumvent the need for U.S. military intervention, but senators had not been briefed on the development and expressed skepticism.
“I have no idea what’s going on. It’d be great if the Russians could convince Assad to turn over his chemical weapons to the international community. That’d be a terrific outcome. I just am very dubious and skeptical,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Comments made Monday in London by Secretary of State John Kerry describing the military effort as “unbelievably small” also rankled lawmakers. Graham said Kerry “undercut everything the president has been doing for the last couple of days” to build support.
That there was strong opposition to Obama’s war in the House was known but this has now spread to the Senate.
The rapid clip of senators announcing their opposition on Monday raised serious doubts that the president would be able to muster the necessary support in either the House or Senate. The GOP-led House is not likely to take up a resolution unless the Senate can pass it first. A final Senate vote was expected this weekend, but Reid’s decision to delay the formal debate puts the schedule in flux.
Five GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Mike Enzi of Wyoming all announced opposition Monday, as did Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.
Briefings by top administration officials and a weekend conversation with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel were not enough to sway Alexander. “I see too much risk that the strike will do more harm than good by setting off a chain of consequences that could involve American fighting men and women in another long-term Middle East conflict,” he said.
If a US strike does not take place the losers will be Obama (for being so strident so quickly) and Al Qaida.
The k2p blog 