 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev. walks to a closed-door briefing by national security officials on the situation in Syria, Friday, Sept. 6, 2013, on Capitol Hill in Washington. President Barack Obama has requested congressional authorization for military intervention in Syria in response to last month's alleged sarin gas attack in the Syrian civil war. |
WASHINGTON
(AP) -- Suggesting an uphill fight for President Barack Obama, House
members staking out positions are either opposed to or leaning against
his plan for a U.S. military strike against Syria by more than a 6-1
margin, a survey by The Associated Press shows. The Senate is more
evenly divided ahead of its vote next week.
Still, the situation is very fluid. Nearly half of the 433-member House and a third of the 100-member Senate remain undecided.
By
their statements or those of aides, only 30 members of the
Republican-led House support intervention or are leaning in favor of
authorizing the president to use force against Syrian President Bashar
Assad's government in response to a chemical weapons attack last month.
Some 192 House members outright oppose U.S. involvement or are leaning
against authorization, according to the AP survey.
The
situation in the Democrat-controlled Senate is better for Obama but
hardly conclusive ahead of a potential vote next week. The AP survey
showed those who support or are leaning in favor of military action
holding a slight 34-32 advantage over those opposed or leaning against
it.
Complicating the effort in the Senate is
the possibility that a three-fifths majority may be required. Republican
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky says he is going to filibuster.
Still, Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, predicted, "I think we're going to get 60 votes,".
Speaking
to reporters Friday after a summit of world leaders in St. Petersburg,
Russia, Obama acknowledged the difficulties he faces in seeking support
for action. He said he would address the nation on Tuesday.
"It's
conceivable at the end of the day I don't persuade a majority of the
American people that it's the right thing to do," Obama said. But the
president, who again would not say what he would do if Congress rebuffed
him, expressed confidence that the people and their lawmakers would
listen to his case.
"Failing to respond," he
said, "would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes and
terrorist organizations that they can develop and use weapons of mass
destruction and not pay a consequence."
Whatever Obama might decide, a rejection from Congress would have wide-ranging ramifications in the United States and abroad.
If
the administration goes ahead with cruise missile strikes and other
limited action against Syrian targets, it could risk a constitutional
crisis with angry lawmakers ahead of other confrontations over raising
the U.S. debt ceiling, funding the government, overhauling immigration
law and implementing Obama's signature health care changes.
The
alternative - that is, stepping back after weeks of war-like threats -
could project weakness to an American foe that the U.S. says has
repeatedly launched chemical weapons attacks. It also could send a
signal to both allies and American enemies that the U.S. is too divided
internally to back up its declarations with actions over everything from
preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons to containing the
threat posed by North Korea's erratic, nuclear-armed dictatorship.
How
difficult is Obama's challenge in Congress? Only 21 House members
publicly back a resolution to attack Syria, and nine say they are
considering giving their support. Some 100 House members oppose Obama's
plan, and 92 say they are leaning against it.
Opposition
runs deep among Republicans and Democrats. So far, GOP lawmakers stand
148-9 against military action, when accounting for leaners. Democrats
are opposed by a tally of 44-21.
For Obama to
succeed, he'll have to win about 90 percent of the undecided House
members - or change the minds of those who are leaning against him.
Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., has already changed his mind, but not in Obama's favor.
"My
initial reaction, as a Marine combat veteran, was to stand by the
commander in chief and support immediate, targeted strikes," Grimm said.
But since then, he said, he has heard from many constituents "who
strongly oppose unilateral action at a time when we have so many needs
here at home." He now believes the benefits of a U.S. strike won't
outweigh "the extreme cost of war."
After a
decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, polls have shown Americans
consistently oppose intervention in Syria, a fact Obama acknowledged
after meeting fellow leaders of the leading rich and developing nations
Friday. He compared the current situation to previous crises when
America had to engage for the good of the world.
"These
kinds of interventions, these kinds of actions are always unpopular
because they seem distant and removed," Obama said. "I'm not drawing an
analogy to World War II, other than to say, you know, when London was
getting bombed, it was profoundly unpopular, both in Congress and around
the country, to help the British."
"The
intervention in Kosovo, very unpopular, but ultimately I think it was
the right thing to do and the international community should be glad
that it came together to do it," he added. "When people say that it is a
terrible stain on all of us that hundreds of thousands of people were
slaughtered in Rwanda, well, imagine if Rwanda was going on right now
and we asked should we intervene in Rwanda. I think it's fair to say
that it probably wouldn't poll real well."
Obama has support among House leaders of both parties.
Speaker
John Boehner, R-Ohio, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and House
Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi of California and Steny Hoyer of
Maryland are on board. But many rank-and-file members of both parties
either oppose attacking Syria or are sitting on the sidelines until they
learn more about the administration's plans and see which way the
political momentum turns.
There is still
plenty of time for the administration to convince House members who are
undecided or who've publicly expressed skepticism about military
engagement. Reluctant lawmakers are often swayed during closed-door
meetings with colleagues and party leaders. Just a third of the House
and Senate have participated in any of the classified briefings with
administration officials over the past week, underscoring that their
votes may still be winnable.
All House members
are invited to a classified briefing on Monday night, after Congress
officially returns from summer break. House Democrats will meet Tuesday
morning with White House Chief of Staff Denis
McDonough, and House
Republicans will meet separately at the same time. In the Senate,
Republicans and Democrats will hold their weekly policy luncheons on
Tuesday, a day before a likely vote to move forward on a resolution
authorizing force.
With Republicans, the administration has a more difficult challenge.
Boehner
and Cantor have provided little indication they're willing to lobby for
Obama's cause, even if they support it. It's also unclear how much they
can deliver given that tea party and other conservative Republicans
have repeatedly gone against Boehner.
Obama is not alone in his effort to drum up support.
Pro-Israel
groups, including the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the
Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, all have
released public statements and made private calls urging lawmakers to
vote for military action in Syria.
Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that the way the world reacts
to chemical weapons use in Syria has implications for how it will
handle Iran's nuclear program, putting one of Congress' favorite foreign
leaders firmly in the "yes" camp.
Still, many
of the most ardent supporters of the Jewish state in Congress aren't
yet convinced. AIPAC is bringing some 250 activists to Washington next
week to push for approval.
Few Republicans or
Democrats contest the argument from U.S. intelligence that Assad carried
out a sarin gas attack in the Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21.
Lawmakers'
main doubts are: Will the limited strikes proposed deter a further
chemical weapons attack? Will they inadvertently help al-Qaida-linked
rebel units? And how will the Obama administration respond if Syria or
Iran retaliates, without getting further involved?
"I
think every member of Congress' perception is colored by what happened
in Iraq," said Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, who is seeking a Senate seat
in 2014 and is leaning against authorizing force. "If Iran responds to
our sending cruise missiles into Syria by launching an attack into
Israel, and then Israel retaliates, and Hezbollah retaliates against
Israel, I have a hard time seeing how the United States avoids getting
drawn into a broader regional conflict."
At
several town hall meetings with lawmakers across the country this week,
people have raised their voices against military involvement.
In
Phoenix on Thursday night, Sen. John McCain, one of the strongest
advocates of U.S. action, faced intense criticism from constituents.
