|
| President Barack Obama smiles for a photographer as he leaves a meeting with congressional Republicans on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2013, where they discussed Syria. On Tuesday night, the president will address the nation on Syria. |
WASHINGTON
(AP) -- In the run-up to a prime-time televised speech, President Barack
Obama blended the threat of a military strike with the hope of a
diplomatic solution Tuesday as he worked to rid Syria of an illicit
stockpile of fearsome chemical weapons.
Secretary
of State John Kerry set a hurry-up trip to Geneva for talks Thursday
with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and the United Nations
Security Council first scheduled, and then scrapped, a private meeting
on steps to defuse a looming crisis.
Despite
expressing skepticism about the outcome of the diplomacy, officials
said, Obama and close Senate allies reaffirmed their decision for a
pause in attempts to win congressional backing for a strike against
President Bashar Assad's government.
And while
a presidential statement to that effect was possible in Obama's
nationwide speech, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel pointedly told a
congressional hearing it was not time to let the threat lapse. "For this
diplomatic option to have a chance at succeeding, the threat of a U.S.
military action, the credible, real threat of U.S. military action, must
continue," he declared.
At the same hearing, Kerry said any diplomacy "cannot be a process of delay. This cannot be a process of avoidance."
He
later added that any agreement must include binding consequences if
Syria fails to comply, and lawmakers moved to rewrite pending
legislation along the same lines.
Obama
himself "wasn't overly optimistic about" prospects for a solution at the
U.N., said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking
Democrat, after his party's rank and file met privately for lunch in the
Capitol with the president. He quoted Obama as saying that even if a
credible plan could be worked out, it could be difficult to push through
the U.N. Security Council. And, indeed, Russian President Vladimir
Putin said such a U.N. effort could work only if "the American side and
those who support the USA in this sense reject the use of force."
The
president readied his speech as a small crowd of anti-war protesters,
some waving signs, gathered outside the gates of the White House.
The
background for his remarks included an unpredictable chain of events
stemming from the chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on
Aug. 21 that the Obama administration swiftly blamed on Assad's
government.
U.S. officials say more than 1,400
died in the episode, including at least 400 children, and other victims
suffered uncontrollable twitching, foaming at the mouth and other
symptoms typical of exposure to chemical weapons banned by international
treaty. Other casualty estimates are lower, and Assad has said the
attack was launched by rebels who have been fighting to drive him from
power in a civil war that has so far claimed the lives of more than
100,000 civilians.
Assad's patron, Russia, has
blocked U.S. attempts to rally the Security Council behind a military
strike. But Monday, after a remark by Kerry, it spoke favorably about
requiring Syria to surrender control of its chemical weapons, and the
Syrian foreign minister did likewise.
The
foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, said Tuesday that his government was
ready to turn over its chemical weapons stockpile in line with Russia's
proposal in order "to thwart U.S. aggression." He also said Syria was
prepared to sign an international chemical convention it has long
rejected - a step it can take on its own at any time without U.S. or
U.N. supervision.
Syria has long refused to
provide an accounting of the size of its stockpile, rarely referring in
public to its existence. According to an unclassified estimate by the
French government, it includes more than 1,000 tons of "chemical agents
and precursor chemicals," including sulfur mustard, VX and sarin gas.
Obama
has said frequently he has the authority as commander in chief to order
a military strike against Assad regardless of any vote in Congress, and
he has consistently declined to say whether he would do so if lawmakers
refuse to approve the legislation he is seeking.
The
response in Congress to support such a strike has been lukewarm at best
- as underscored during the day when liberal Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass.,
and conservative Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., both announced their
opposition.
Markey, who was elected to the
seat that Kerry vacated when he joined the Cabinet, said the legislation
under consideration was too broad, "the effects of a strike are too
unpredictable, and ... I believe we must give diplomatic measures that
could avoid military action a chance to work."
Said
Mulvaney: "While I am concerned about taking no action, it strikes me
that international law cannot be upheld via unilateral attack by the
United States."
And Rep. James Langevin, a
Rhode Island Democrat who sits on committees dealing both with military
and intelligence matters, said he feared that "Iran and Russia could
cause serious damage" to the United States if they retaliated with a
cyberattack.
Yet Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer,
the second-ranking Democrat in the House, said, "It would be inimical to
our country's standing if we do not show a willingness to act in the
face of the use of chemical weapons and to act in a limited way to
address that use alone."
Hours before Obama's
speech from the White House's East Room, Hoyer added, " I don't think
there's any doubt that failure to do so would weaken our country, create
a more dangerous international environment and to some degree undermine
the president of the United States."
Earlier,
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell became the first congressional
leader to come out against legislation giving the president authority
for limited strikes. "There are just too many unanswered questions
about our long-term strategy in Syria," he said.
By
contrast, Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Majority Leader Eric Cantor
of Virginia, the top two Republicans in the House, have endorsed Obama's
request.
Given the uncertainty of diplomatic maneuvering, no vote is expected for several days, if then.
"If
something can be done diplomatically, I'm totally satisfied with that.
I'm not a blood and thunder guy. I'm not for shock and awe," said Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid in a reference to the massive display of
firepower that opened the war in Iraq nearly a decade ago.
Still,
there was ample skepticism in Congress about the United Nations as well
as Russia's true intentions, as well as Syria's willingness to be bound
by international agreements.
"There is an
overwhelming view it would be preferable if international law and the
family of nations could strip Syria of the chemical weapons," said Sen.
Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "And there's a large view we should let that
process play out for a little while."
Said
Boehner: "Clearly, diplomacy is always a better outcome than military
action. But I will say that I'm somewhat skeptical of those that are
involved in the diplomatic discussions today."
