The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution on Wednesday authorizing a limited U.S. military intervention in Syria, setting the stage for a debate in the full Senate next week on the use of military force.
- Obama, Syria and the prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran
- Hagel: Refusal to act on Syria would undermine U.S. credibility on Iran
- Syria resolution in U.S. Senate sets deadline, bars ground forces
- Obama says hopes Putin will change position on Syria
- Russia: U.S. strike on Syria's nuclear installations could be 'catastrophic'
- Iran's Khamenei warns of U.S. loss over intervention in Syria
The committee voted 10-7 in favor of a compromise resolution that sets a 60-day limit on any engagement in Syria and bars the use of U.S. troops on the ground for combat operations.
Haaretz in depth coverage of the crisis in Syria: Obama, Syria and the prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran (Amos Harel) || Former Syrian defense minister defects in break with Assad (Reuters) || U.S. intervention in Syria - humanitarian action or a new imperialism (Aeyal Gross) || What Congress should learn from Auschwitz before the Syria vote (Gregory J. Wallance)
The White House praised the decision, which was voted on only hours after U.S. President Barack Obama, travelling in Sweden, left open the possibility he would order a strike even if Congress withheld its approval.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the measure would uphold U.S. national security interests, by degrading Syrian President Bashar Assad's chemical weapons capabilities and deterring future use of them, while working toward political transition.
The compromise is more limited than Obama's original proposal, but meets the administration's goal of punishing Syria for what the U.S. government says is the use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians, killing more than 1,400 people.
The authorization still faces significant resistance in Congress, where many lawmakers fear it could lead to a prolonged U.S. military involvement in Syria's civil war and spark an escalation of regional violence.
The full Democratic-controlled Senate is expected to vote on the resolution next week. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives also must approve it.
Both votes are expected to be close, as scores of lawmakers in both parties have yet to stake out a public position other than to say they are looking for more answers.
Obama and administration officials have pushed Congress to act quickly, saying U.S. national security and international credibility is at stake in the decision whether to use force in Syria to punish President Bashar Assad's government for chemical weapons use.
"If we don't take a stand here today, I guarantee you, we are more likely to face far greater risks to our security and a far greater likelihood of conflict that demands our action in the future," Secretary of State John Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee at a separate meeting on Wednesday.
"Assad will read our silence, our unwillingness to act, as a signal that he can use his weapons with impunity," Kerry said.
The committee vote came after the two panel leaders - Democratic Chairman Robert Menendez and senior Republican Bob Corker - crafted a compromise to meet concerns from some lawmakers that Obama's resolution was too open-ended.
Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona had objected to the more narrow wording. But the committee adopted amendments proposed by McCain with policy goals of degrading Assad's ability to use chemical weapons, increasing support for rebel forces and reversing battlefield momentum to create conditions for Assad's removal.
Five Republicans and two of Obama's fellow Democrats - Chris Murphy and Tom Udall - voted against the resolution. Democrat Ed Markey voted "present," saying in a statement that he is still undecided.
The relatively close committee vote reflected the broad divisions on the authorization in Congress, where many lawmakers fear it could lead to a prolonged U.S. military involvement in Syria's civil war and spark an escalation of regional violence.
Many lawmakers have said they are worried the resolution could lead to U.S. ground troops, or "boots on the ground," in Syria - which administration officials said would not happen.
"It's very clear on the House side there is no support for boots on the ground," House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce told Kerry at Wednesday's hearing, which also featured testimony from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Kerry answered flatly, "There will be no boots on the ground. The president has said it again and again."