Posted on 09/04/2013 4:03:09 PM PDT by Kaslin
Secretary of State John Kerry revealed that Arab countries were offering to bear all the financial costs of unseating President Assad if the United States took the lead on military action during Wednesday’s House hearing on the Obama Administration’s proposal for Syrian intervention.
The hearing, held by the House Committee of Foreign Relations, hosted Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey to provide testimony on the Administration’s proposed resolution to use military force against the Assad Regime for its use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.
The House’s hearing come the just one day after the Senate Foreign Relations committee held their own hearing with the Secretaries and General.
The Chairman of the committee, Congressman Ed Royce, called upon Congressman Engel to deliver his opening statement. Engel sponsored the 2003 Syria Accountability Act, which stated that Syria’s use of weapons of mass destruction would be a direct threat to U.S. national security interests; he also sponsored the “Free Syria Act of 2013” that would have “(authorized) the President to provide lethal and non-lethal weapons to the moderate (Syrian) opposition.”
Engel called on the House to support the President’s push for a ‘limited’ strike against Syria for its direct violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention:
“We should not give the president a blank check…any strike should be of a limited nature, and that there should absolutely be no American boots on the ground in Syria.”
Engel reminded the committee that the crisis in Syria is an “ongoing humanitarian crisis,” and the goal is to “find a path forward that brings a lasting peace for the Syrian people.”
Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey reiterated almost verbatim their testimonies from the Senate hearing, making a point to emphasize certain elements of their proposals that came under fire from Senators the day before.
Secretary Kerry reiterated his sentiments from the night before concerning the United States’ credibility in the eyes of its allies and enemies.
“I don’t think, I know, it’s no exaggeration to say that the world is not just watching to see what we decide here, but its watching to see how we decide…can we achieve a single voice?”
Kerry reinforced his absolute certainty that the Assad regime was responsible for the use of chemical weapons against Syrian rebels and civilians, and suggested that more information regarding the attack on August 21st, provided by “friends of Syria” would be released soon. He went on to assert that Assad’s conscious overstep of the President’s “red line” was a direct threat to U.S. national security:
“Only the most willful desire to avoid reality, only the most devious political purpose could assert that this did not occur. It did happen, and the Bashar al-Assad Regime did it.”
”This is about the world’s red line, this is about humanity’s red line…this is also about Congress’ red line…Congress passed the Syria Accountability Act,” he reminded the committee.
He urged Congress to avoid “consent through silence…Syria is important to America and our security.”
The Secretary made an obvious effort to clarify his statements from the Senate hearing, when he suggested that he “[didn’t] want to take off the table an option…to secure our country” by putting U.S. military troops on the ground in Syria. He alluded to a new draft of the resolution formed by the Senate that strongly prohibited the use of military forces on the ground.
“We are not asking America to go to war. (Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey) know the difference between going to war and what the President is asking for. We all agree there will be no American boots on the ground. We have no intention of assuming responsibility for Assad’s civil war; that is not in [the] cards.”
Defense Secretary Hagel also shared a similar testimony to the one he delivered during the Senate hearing; notably, he emphasized the increased threat on U.S. national security if terrorist organizations linked with the Syrian regime were able to gain access to chemical weapons:
“If Assad is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people, we have to be concerned that terrorist groups like Hezbollah…could acquire them and use them.”
“We cannot afford for any terrorist group with interest to strike to U.S….to acquire nuclear weapons.”
General Dempsey only provided a few comments in his statement, but made it clear—to the distraught of many Representatives—that “militarily, the broader the resolutions, the more options [he] can provide.”
While many of the House members were quick to condemn the use of chemical weapons and sympathized with the victims, the Secretaries and General met ample criticism and skepticism from House members who raised a variety of concerns about the looming attack, from potential military repercussions to the costs that will be put on the American taxpayer.
Secretary Kerry was asked by various Representatives, most noticeably Congressman Wilson, why there was no military response in April, 2013 when the Assad regime used chemical weapons against the Syrian people. Wilson went on to ask if the proposed resolution was “a diversion” from the scandals that have plagued Washington over the summer, including the NSA surveillance of American citizens, the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups, the new revelations regarding the attack on the Benghazi consulate, and the ineffectual implementation of Obamacare provisions.
The Secretary explained that the President felt the previous attacks “merited an increase of assistance” to the opposition, but did not explain what criteria was used to determine why the attack on August 21st was one that specifically deserved a military response.
Congressman Poe asked General Dempsey to comment on the Administration’s plan if Assad and his allies “shoot back at Americans” after the U.S. carries out its military strike. Dempsey could not guarantee that there would be no push-back from the regime, but cited, “the contribution we will seek from others begins to eliminate that risk”; however, the General did not give examples of other nations that would be asked to support the United States if the crisis were to escalate.
Congressman Higgans painted a different picture of the Syrian conflict -- one that portrayed the conflict as a fight between a “brutal dictator” and “Islamic affiliates,” that left the United States with “no good military options,” and very little reason to become involved in the region.
“This is nothing more than a fight for control between two sectarian factions.”
“There is no democracy movement in Syria.”
The biggest surprise came late into the hearing, when Secretary Kerry revealed that Arab countries have offered to burden the financial costs of unseating President Assad if the United States handles the military action. This information contracts his previous statements that assured discussions of escalating military action in Syria were off limits:
Though the Secretaries and General tried to clarify the “limited” and “narrow” scope of the planned military attack against Syria, Kerry’s references to hypothetical plans involving military action and direct involvement in the civil war may have further blurred the lines concerning the Administration’s real purpose for Syrian intervention. When Congress reconvenes on September 9th, supporters and skeptics on both side of the aisle will debate what goals in Syria, if any, are linked directly the U.S. national interest; they will also determine if they trust the Administration to faithfully execute their decision.“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said.
“That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.”
I wonder if he will resurrect his “It’s the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time” line.
Their agenda is the battle between the different factions of Islam, has nothing to do with us.
Amen.
How much is the risk of one American life lost worth to these corrupt money changers?
Is this code from Kerry that Arab nations are willing to buy votes, as well?
Except the fact that Obozo and Kerry are about to lend our enemies our military forces.
AS USUAL ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS MESS IS EXPLAINED BY ANNIE COULTER...NUFF SAID.
no more intervention into Muslim tribal war(s)........
Sign over the oil fields and we’ll talk.
I still think that this is a distraction from our own domestic problems and will get people’s attention away from amnesty and the rest of their agenda, which is the complete transformation of our once great country.
Let’s make it clear from the outset that I know nothing about Syria that you probably don’t. I am not an expert on international relations or the Middle East or nerve gas. I have never been to Syria and had no desire to visit even before the situation there got uber-crazy.
But being a reasonable person who has lived thru a host of US wars and conflicts and military actions, I know a bad “strike” idea when I hear it.
Let’s stipulate some facts. Bashar al-Assad, who actually graduated from medical school and was trained as an ophthalmologist, went off the rails shortly after being named President of Syria in 2000. His latest atrocities against those who oppose him rank right up there or exceed other recent Middle Eastern despots and indeed the worst in history. Children are apparently among his victims in equal numbers to adults.
Al-Assad is off-the-charts scary and brutally vile. If he only did half the things he is accused of, he deserves to die a la Hussein or Bin Laden. The world would certainly be better off for his absence.
But there is a huge difference between assassinating one maniacally evil dictator who has, so far, confined his slaughter to his own country, and launching an “attack” that will further destabilize the most volatile region of the world.
“Attack” sounds kind of acceptable these days, like an NFL team attacking a zone defense with a crossing route or Orkin attacking a swarm of invading ants with some kind of chemical that we would rather not understand. But it is just a euphemism for bombing and drone strikes and other forms of killing that aren’t surgically precise or necessarily “clean” at all (meaning more civilian casualties including people we are ostensibly trying to protect). If this approach worked, why didn’t we use it in Iraq or Afghanistan and save thousands of young Americans the return trip home in body bags?
It is understandable and commendable that America wants to help out the rest of the world, especially in such a hideous situation as now exists in Syria. Our hearts, rightfully, go out to every good person in that country. And there are many of them. But the truth is that those people who are under siege are not awaiting US military help. They are not fans of the US. Their culture and religion and ideas are not standing by for us to fix them.
Just as we didn’t fix Korea, Vietnam ,Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya or Eqypt. Just as we are surely going down a path of greater intervention to achieve our objectives, including the use of American military forces on the ground. A good friend of mine, who is a West Point graduate and fought two times in Iraq, said, “This is just the beginning of another unwinnable conflict. Welcome to Haliburton Three.”
Is there ever a point at which it would make sense to intervene in Syria? Perhaps. But anti-war candidate Obama has made a legacy via war and political assassination. The other conservatives can’t help but join this attack party. They don’t want to look “soft.” It feels so much like Iraq and the consensus that developed. It feels like a boost to the economy. And darn, we haven’t started a new war in a few years.
But how will it feel in one year or three years? How will it feel when the planes land from Damascus with dead US soldiers and thousands more maimed? How difficult is it to imagine that this is going to turn out well?
The Saudis have plenty of combat aircraft. Let them take care of the problem & leave us out of it.
B.S. Arab money can’t replace American blood. Let these camel-humpers kill each other until the Lord comes back.
Like Rush said, so now we’re “the help,” a temporary contract agency?
That is part of their plan, to be sure. But, I believe it goes deeper, far deeper. Their is a worldwide movement to plant Sharia all across the globe, and the Obozo Admin is assisting in this agenda.
Indeed, John could suffer a terrible yachting accident.
Well, that’s a relief. I thought we were going to act as unilateral bullies, but it turns out we’re going to be mercenaries instead! That’s ever so much better.
Is it just me, but I can’t get over the Frankenstein transformation of his face. This guy is creepy looking.
There are good Muslims? Where?
We are not the Saudis’ whore. We can not be bought.
Right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.