After President Barack Obama surprised analysts by deferring his decision to intervene in Syria to a vote from Congress, federal representatives and senators nationwide have blurred party lines and undertaken individual efforts to collect information from intelligence reports, experts and their constituents to decide whether they will vote to authorize a military intervention in the civil war-wracked country.
In Wisconsin, all legislators have either taken a position against an intervention or remain undecided, pending the extensive intelligence briefings and congressional hearings scheduled this week about the ramifications surrounding recent chemical weapon use in Syria. Obama first proposed military intervention after it was made clear that sarin gas had been used on a large number of Syrian citizens living in a Damascus suburb.
Undecided members of the House will also wait for a potential late in the week final decision from the Senate, whose Foreign Relations Committee narrowly approved a trimmed down version of Obama’s original request for intervention.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., sits on the 17-person Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was one of the seven votes against the plan for intervention. He cited “unanswered questions” and a voting process that was “inappropriately rushed” as his reasons for voting against the proposal, which would allow military intervention for a 60-day period with the possibility of one 30-day extension. It would also forbid the introduction of ground troops in the area.
“It is the job of President Obama and members of his administration to demonstrate why military action in Syria is in our national security interest,” Johnson said in a Sept. 4 statement following his vote. “Until I cast the final vote, I will keep an open mind as I continue to seek answers to my questions.”
Wisconsin’s other senator, Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., has yet to take a side on the debate, but called Obama’s decision to engage Congress in the decision “the right one” in a statement. However, she added the decision before both branches of government is filled with “no good options.” Baldwin added the U.S. should talk and cooperate with the international community to establish a “precedent” for the “global atrocity” that was Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s alleged use of chemical gas in Syria.
The fear of “no good options” and the call for international discussions has also extended to Wisconsin’s House delegation. Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., who remains undecided on intervening, said he is still collecting information and attending briefings to make his decision despite the lack of good options. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., actively came out against intervention, saying he has not seen a clear national security interest, which Obama has continually argued exists, or enough involvement from the international community.
“Right now, the case has not been made, in my opinion, to justify a unilateral or close to unilateral military strike in Syria,” Pocan said at an event held on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus.
Kind said while he is weighing a variety of issues in regard to authorizing intervention, one of his bigger concerns is the possibility of increased turmoil in the area if the U.S. were to launch missile strikes to degrade al-Assad’s chemical weapons capabilities.
“I could very easily paint a very scary picture of Assad launching missiles into Israel and [Israeli] Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu being forced to respond, Hezbollah opening up a barrage of missiles from southern Lebanon and Israel being forced to respond,” Kind said.
Kind said his concern could be remedied by detailed intelligence agency reports from Obama on potential regional reactions, but he said he would not consider a yes vote until receiving satisfactory information.
“For me today the threshold of proof is much higher as a consequence of Iraq,” Kind said. “It’s not just ‘trust me’ any more. As a member of Congress, I want to see proof about [chemical attacks] so we know what we are walking into with eyes wide open.”
Other House representatives, including Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., have voiced their opposition to intervening.
Ryan took a tone similar to other representatives who call for more detailed information, saying in a statement Obama has to demonstrate military force would strengthen national security.
“I want to hear his case to Congress and to the American people,” Ryan said in the statement.
Reps. Reid Ribble, R-Wis., Sean Duffy, R-Wis., and F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., have also come out against the proposal.
Other Reps. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., and Tom Petri, R-Wis., remain undecided pending further information from constituents and intelligence briefings.
The information many legislators are seeking will likely be presented this week, as both houses return from their August recess. Obama will also give an address from the White House Tuesday night likely appealing to the public for his pro-intervention position.
Final votes in both houses are expected late this week or early next week.
