Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

United States involvement in Syria, 2009-2017

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Portal:Legislative Branch
Features of Congress
Definitions
Classes of United States Senators • President Pro Tempore of the Senate • United States Speaker of the House • Filibuster • Reconciliation • Vote-a-ramas • Parliamentarian • Christmas tree bill
Notable events
Key votes • Presidential addresses
Elections
Election dates • Filing requirements for congressional candidates • Filling vacancies in Senate • Filling vacancies in House
Campaign finance
Federal Election Commission • Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee • National Republican Congressional Committee • Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee • National Republican Senatorial Committee
Sessions
119th Congress
118th • 117th • 116th • 115th • 114th • 113th • 112th • 111th • 110th

See also: The Obama administration on Syria, 2009-2017

In March 2011, pro-democracy protests evolved in Damascus and Daraa, where political prisoners were held for speaking out against President Bashar al-Assad Assad's Ba'ath party regime. As the protests grew more popular, government security forces detained some protesters and opened fire on others in Daraa. In May 2011, the United States ordered sanctions against the Syrian government for human rights violations, but Assad continued his assault on the protesters throughout Syria, which left thousands dead, according to the United Nations.[1][2]

Throughout the rest of 2011 and until July 2012, the U.S. withdrew ambassadors and diplomats from Syria while the rebels continued to fight with pro-Assad forces. In July 2012, the Syrian government threatened the use of biological and chemical weapons if outside forces invaded the country. The following month, President Barack Obama said that if biological or chemical weapons were used, the U.S. would reconsider its opposition to military involvement in Syria. On August 21, 2013, the Syrian government was accused of a chemical weapons attack on a town in the suburbs of Damascus, killing thousands.[3]

On August 31, 2013, Obama announced that he would ask Congress to vote on the use of military force in Syria in response to Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons. He said, “This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. . . . It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.”[4]

On September 14, 2013, before Congress could vote on the use of military force in Syria, the U.S. and Russia reached a preliminary agreement requiring Syria to eliminate all of its chemical weapons material and equipment in the first half of 2014.[5][6]

Background

Syrian civil war

The uprising in Syria was sparked by the arrests of 15 children in Daraa who spray painted "the people want to topple the regime" on the wall of a school in March 2011, during the Arab Spring. They were reportedly beaten and tortured in prison. Protesters in Damascus and then Daraa demanded the release of the prisoners. Security forces responded to the protesters by beating them and then opening fire and killing four of them. The deaths caused the protests to grow throughout the country, and eventually the children were freed from prison. However, tensions between pro-democracy protesters and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's Ba'ath party regime continued. In July 2011, the Free Syrian Army formed to protect and support protestors. The uprising escalated into a civil war, and according to the United Nations, resulted in 90,000 deaths by June 2013 and climbed to 250,000 deaths by August 2015.[1][2][7][8]

According to the BBC, the conflict then "acquired sectarian overtones, pitching the country's Sunni majority against the president's Shia Alawite sect, and drawn in regional and world powers." The conflict was further complicated by the growth of the Islamic State—commonly referred to as ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh—in the region in 2014 when the jihadist group captured large portions of the country and established headquarters in the city of Raqqa. In addition to the Islamic State, the Assad regime, and anti-Assad rebels, other factions engaged in the conflict were Hezbollah and Kurdish fighters. In 2015, Russia entered the conflict in support of the Assad regime.[7][9]

U.S. involvement in Syria

In May 2011, the United States ordered sanctions against the Syrian government for human rights violations, but Assad continued to attack the protesters. Throughout the rest of 2011 and until July 2012, the U.S. withdrew ambassadors and diplomats from Syria.[10]

In July 2012, the Syrian government threatened the use of biological and chemical weapons if outside forces invaded the country. In August 2012, President Barack Obama said the red line for U.S. involvement in Syria was the use of chemical or biological weapons. He said, “We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that's a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons.”[11][1][2][12]

On August 21, 2013, the Syrian government was accused of a chemical weapons attack on a town in the suburbs of Damascus, killing hundreds of Syrians. In response, Obama requested Congress to authorize a limited military strike against Assad's forces. The joint resolution never reached a vote because Syria said it would relinquish its chemical weapons per a disarmament agreement crafted by the United States and Russia.[3][13][14][7]

Millions of Syrians were displaced because of the civil war. In 2016, the United States accepted approximately 12,500 refugees from Syria, slightly exceeding the Obama administration's annual goal of resettling 10,000 Syrians.[15][16]

SJ Res 21—Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons

On September 3, 2013, Senate leaders released the draft of SJ Res 21—Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons (AUMF). The resolution proposed authorizing Obama to use military force against Syria for up to 60 days with a one-time optional 30-day extension. The resolution also proposed prohibiting putting members of the U.S. military on the ground and limiting the mission to attacking Assad’s chemical weapons capabilities. Additionally, the resolution proposed requiring the Obama administration to submit to Congress their plan for helping moderate elements of the armed Syrian opposition.[17][18]

Timeline of deliberations to use force in Syria

  • September 14, 2013: After the U.S. and Russia reached a preliminary agreement requiring Syria to eliminate all of its chemical weapons material and equipment in the first half of 2014, the congressional vote was postponed.[19][20]
  • September 12, 2013: Vice President Joe Biden (D) announced that he canceled an official trip to Panama in order to focus on the administration's Syrian efforts.[21]
  • September 11, 2013: Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote an op-ed that appeared in The New York Times. Putin argued against military intervention in Syria. He wrote, "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation." The line referred to Obama's statement about American exceptionalism and America's desire to intervene to prevent others from harm. Obama said, "That's what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth." The White House called Putin's criticism irrelevant.[22]
  • September 10, 2013: Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) drafted a resolution authorizing the use of military force only after a prescribed period of time in which the United Nations would be given a chance to take control of Syria's chemical weapons.[23]
  • September 10, 2013: Amid news of a potential deal between Russia and Syria, in which Syrian President Assad agreed to put Syria's chemical weapons under international control, the Senate vote originally scheduled for September 11, 2013, was postponed.[23]
  • September 10, 2013: A bipartisan group of congressional members led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) met to discuss ways to oppose the resolution.[25]
  • September 10, 2013: In a speech, Obama explained his decision to ask Congress to authorize targeted airstrikes against the Assad regime for using chemical weapons. He said, "The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use." He said that he had avoided military action in Syria, but "[t]he situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war."[26]
  • September 9, 2013: National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey met with Congress.[24]
  • September 8, 2013: Vice-President Joe Biden (D) met with Senate Republicans. Obama also attended the meeting.[24]
  • September 6, 2013: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced the Syrian resolution to the Senate.[27]
  • September 4, 2013: The United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations voted 10-7 in favor of the resolution setting a 60-day limit on any engagement in Syria, with a possible 30-day extension. The resolution also barred the use of U.S. troops on the ground for combat operations.[28]
  • September 4, 2013: Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) drafted an amendment to the resolution "that would add language stating the policy of the United States to pursue a reversal of the momentum on the ground in Syria as a means to encourage a political solution between the regime and the opposition."[29]
  • September 4, 2013: During a press conference with Sweden’s prime minister, Obama said that the international community should hold Assad accountable for using chemical weapons. He said, “I think America also recognizes that if the international community fails to maintain certain norms, standards, laws, governing, how countries interact, and how people are treated, that over time this world becomes less safe. It becomes more dangerous not only for those people who are subjected to those kinds of crimes, but to humanity. ... My credibility isn’t on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America’s and Congress’ credibility is on the line. ... I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line. When I said my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it.”[30]
  • September 3, 2013: Senate leaders drafted SJ Res 21—Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons—to authorize the use of military force against Syria for up to 60 days with a one-time optional 30-day extension.[17][18]
  • August 31, 2013: Obama announced that he would ask Congress to vote on the use of military force in Syria in response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons. The announcement delayed a cruise missile strike. Obama said that not responding to the attack on August 21, 2013, in a Damascus suburb that killed nearly 1,500 civilians would set a dangerous precedent. He said, “This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. . . . It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.”[4]
  • August 21, 2013: Assad's forces used outlawed chemical toxins to kill nearly 1,500 civilians, including at least 426 children.[31]

Members of the U.S. Senate on the use of force in Syria

Support

Republicans

September 11, 2013: Corker criticized the briefings held with congressional members, saying, "Their message is just so muddled. Different audiences, they stress different things. … They keep trying to find some footing that makes them feel good, or the audience feel good; it’s been the most muddled thing I’ve ever seen in my life."[32]
August 26, 2013: Corker stated that U.S. involvement in Syria was imminent and that "it's up to us to intervene."[33]
September 14, 2013: McCain and Graham released a joint statement on the Russian deal with Syria to relinquish Syria's chemical weapons. McCain and Graham said the deal was "an act of provocative weakness on America’s part. We cannot imagine a worse signal to send to Iran as it continues its push for a nuclear weapon. ... [T]his framework agreement is meaningless. Assad will use the months and months afforded to him to delay and deceive the world using every trick in Saddam Hussein’s playbook. Is the message of this agreement that Assad is now our negotiating partner, and that he can go on slaughtering innocent civilians and destabilizing the Middle East using every tool of warfare, so long as he does not use chemical weapons? That is morally and strategically indefensible. The only way this underlying conflict can be brought to a decent end is by significantly increasing our support to moderate opposition forces in Syria. We must strengthen their ability to degrade Assad’s military advantage, change the momentum on the battlefield, and thereby create real conditions for a negotiated end to the conflict.”[34]
John McCain on Syria, Sept. 3, 2013
September 15, 2013: McCain said, "It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of whether it will be enforced. [Russia foreign secretary Sergei Lavrov] said 'there is nothing in this agreement about the use of force,' i.e. they will not agree to the use of force no matter what [Syrian President] Bashar Assad does. ... There is not a seriousness on the part of the Russians. We’re going to see the Russians facilitating the departure of chemical weapons while plane load after plane load of Russian aircraft coming into Damascus full of weapons and devices to kill Syrians."[35]
September 11, 2013: McCain criticized the briefings held with congressional members, saying in an interview with Politico, "One reason is because they are not specific: They are not answering many of the questions. Certainly, that was the case in the Armed Services Committee. And Gen. Dempsey doesn’t have a lot of credibility."[32]
September 4, 2013: Following the resolution vote, McCain said, "These amendments are vital to ensuring that any U.S. military operations in Syria are part of a broader strategy to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria. That strategy must degrade the military capabilities of the Assad regime while upgrading the military capabilities of moderate Syrian opposition forces. These amendments would put the Congress on the record that this is the policy of the United States, as President Obama has assured me it is."[36]
September 2, 2013: McCain said the following about use-of-force in Syria after meeting with Obama: "A rejection of this resolution would be catastrophic, not just for him but for the institution of the presidency and the credibility of the United States."[37]

Democrats

September 9, 2013: Reid spoke to the Senate in support of military intervention in Syria. He said, "If we allow Assad’s use of chemical weapons to go unchecked and unanswered, hostile forces around the world will also assume these terrible attacks of demons like Assad are permissible, they’re OK. Americans cannot allow that. My mind returns to that turning point in the world history when the United States of America faced down an evil regime that murdered millions of innocent citizens. Millions and millions of civilians and prisoners of war were murdered by gas in Nazi death camps. Some prefer isolation. That’s the easy thing to do. But sitting on the sideline isn’t what made the United States of America the greatest nation in the world in years past. Sitting on the sidelines won’t make us a better nation tomorrow.”[38]
September 11, 2013: After Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote an op-ed for The New York Times, Menendez said, "I almost wanted to vomit. I worry when someone who came up through the KGB tells us what is in our national interests and what is not. It really raises the question of how serious the Russian proposal is."[39]
September 3, 2013: Menendez presided over a hearing about whether or not the Senate should authorize military intervention in Syria. Syria was accused of using chemical weapons in an attack on 1,500 of its own people. Menendez supported taking action in Syria, saying, "It is my view that the use of military force in Syria is justified and necessary given the Assad regime's reprehensible use of chemical weapons and gross violation of international law." He suggested attacking the specific regime units that carried out the chemical attacks in Eastern Damascus.[40]
September 1, 2013: Nelson said he supported Obama's decision to seek congressional approval. He said, "But as far as I'm concerned, we should strike in Syria today. The use of chemical weapons was inhumane, and those responsible should be forced to suffer the consequences."[37]

Opposition

Republicans

September 10, 2013: McConnell told the Senate that he opposed the resolution saying, “I will be voting against this resolution — a vital national security risk is clearly not at play. This debate has been made more difficult because even those of us who truly want to support the commander-in-chief have struggled to understand the purpose of the mission. No one should be faulted for being skeptical about this proposal, regardless of what party they’re in, or for being dumbfounded at the ham-handed manner in which the White House announced it. There is absolutely no reason to signal to the enemy when and how, and for how long, you plan to strike them — none. As I’ve said before, you don’t send out a save-the-date card to the enemy.”[41]
September 11, 2013: While speaking to a crowd at the Heritage Foundation, Cruz praised Obama's decision to seek congressional approval, while still acknowledging he would have voted against the proposal. Cruz said, "I would have voted ‘no,’ great many others would have voted ‘no.’ But I think it reflected a wise and prudent judgement on the part of the president to postpone the vote, rather than have that authority rejected and I don’t believe that the president is going to ignore the views of the American people."[42]
September 4, 2013: After voting no on the Senate resolution, Johnson said, "I'm highly concerned that the administration's action will be ineffective. And I think ineffective action would be actually worse than no action whatsoever. I really did not get any kind of comfort level that this administration has adequately planned for the repercussions of a strike against Syria. They may be able to provide me with that comfort over the next couple of days before we take the final vote. But right now I simply did not have the information or the answers to the questions I needed to even allow me to consider voting yes on this resolution."[43]
September 2, 2013: Johnson said, "I am hoping that through these hearings, through this discussion with the American people, the president can make a strong case and that we can get America behind him and behind the actions that, quite honestly, nobody wants to take. ... He [Obama] dithered, he didn’t act decisively right off the bat, so based on, with all the leaks, with all the discussion going on, yeah I didn’t see any reason for real quick action. He’ll be in a far stronger position if he makes the case and convinces the American public and Congress.”[44]
September 11, 2013: Paul said that Russian President Vladimir Putin was outmaneuvering Obama. Paul said, “If this were a tennis match, it would be the umpire shouting, ‘Advantage Putin!’ He seems to be running circles around this administration.” Speaking about a potential diplomatic agreement on Syria’s chemical weapons, Paul said, “It really seems that they backed into this through some lucky happenstance."[45]
September 4, 2013: Paul said, “So this morning I will introduce an amendment to the resolution in committee and I will ask to make it a binding vote and that Congress acknowledge that this is Congressional authority and that we have the ability to grant it to the President, but the President doesn’t have the ability to initiate war without Congressional authority. That’s what the Constitution says."[46]
August 30, 2013: Paul said he thought the Obama administration’s only objective in Syria was a stalemate. He said that he did not support “sending my son, your son or anyone else’s son to fight if your goal or objective is stalemate. I think we have no strategic objective and I don’t think it’ll change the course of the war. In fact, one of the things that troubles me is that we’ve already announced in advance well, it’s not going to be too much of an attack, it’s not going to last too long and we’re not for regime change. And I’ve told them, frankly, I’m not sending my son, your son or anyone else’s son to fight if your goal or objective is stalemate. That’s not what Americans are about.”[47]
August 29, 2013: Paul said he “can’t see fighting to impose Sharia law in Syria. I also can’t see sending my son to fight with Islamic rebels against Christians. I also can’t see my son going to fight on the same side as Al Qaeda. There’s so many ironies and unfortunate muddling nature to this that I can’t see why we should get involved, and there are potential repercussions.”[47]

Democrats

September 1, 2013: Harkin said the United States should not take military action in Syria without broad international support and stronger evidence that chemical weapons were used on Syria’s civilian population. He said that U.S. military intervention would not solve the Syrian crisis alone. “I have just attended a classified Congressional briefing on Syria that quite frankly raised more questions than it answered. I found the evidence presented by Administration officials to be circumstantial. The atrocious use of chemical weapons against civilian is an affront to human values and a violation of international law. It should be condemned by the international community as a whole. The coming debate in Congress will hopefully shine the light on outstanding questions. As will the results of the U.N. inspection team. We must wait for these results before any action is taken. What I hear from Iowans is that the Middle East has a complex history and the conflicts there will not be solved by U.S. military action alone. We should not rush into what may become a new open-ended war without broad international backing or a full understanding of the ramifications,” Harkin said.[48]
September 6, 2013: Manchin announced that he did not support U.S. airstrikes in Syria. He said, "Given the case that has been presented to me, I believe that a military strike against Syria at this time is the wrong course of action. I believe that we must exhaust all diplomatic options and have a comprehensive plan for international involvement before we act.”[49]

Members of the U.S. House on the use of force in Syria

Support

John Boehner on Syria, September 3, 2013

Republicans

September 3, 2013: Boehner supported Obama's proposed military strikes against Syria. He stated, "The use of these weapons has to be responded to and only the United States has the capability and the capacity to stop Assad and to warn others around the world that this type of behavior is not to be tolerated."[37]
September 3, 2013: Cantor released a statement regarding congressional approval for intervention in Syria. He said, "I intend to vote to provide the President of the United States the option to use military force in Syria. Understanding that there are differing opinions on both sides of the aisle, it is up to President Obama to make the case to Congress and to the American people that this is the right course of action, and I hope he is successful in that endeavor.”[50]

Democrats

Nancy Pelosi on Syria, September 3, 2013
September 5, 2013: Pelosi sent a third letter to House Democrats highlighting the restrictions of the Senate's use-of-force resolution, in an effort to gather support for Obama's plan to strike Syria. In the letter, Pelosi emphasized that the Senate proposal, passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “addresses some of the concerns expressed by many of our House members. Specifically, the resolution prevents boots on the ground, ties the authorization more closely to the use of chemical and other weapons of mass destruction, and has a limited timetable."[51]
September 4, 2013: Pelosi sent a second letter to House Democrats asking them to support a strike on Syria. She wrote, “Our continuing discussion on the appropriate response to the Syrian government’s actions is affected by Congress not being in session. However, this week is an important one in our discussion of what House Members are willing to support.” Pelosi acknowledged concerns she had received in response to her first correspondence and attempted to address them. “Responses included suggestions to add language to prevent boots on the ground, to tie the authorization more closely to the use of chemical weapons and to address concerns about an open-ended timetable,” she wrote. “Chairman [Steve] Israel has suggested language along these lines, and Congressmen Chris Van Hollen and Gerry Connolly have also put forward a proposal.” Pelosi emphasized that Obama needed to make the case for the strike.[52]
September 3, 2013: Pelosi sent a letter to House Democrats asking them to support military action in Syria in response to alleged chemical weapons use. She wrote, “At this critical juncture, it is essential that we make all Americans — the men and women we represent — fully aware of what the intelligence clearly and unequivocally demonstrates: that the Assad regime was responsible for chemical weapons attacks against innocent Syrians, resulting in the deaths of more than 1,400 people, including hundreds of children. ... It is in our national interest to respond to the Syrian government’s unspeakable use of chemical weapons. Indeed, it has been, and remains, a core pillar of our national security — under Democratic and Republican administrations — to prevent, limit, and halt the spread and use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. This is a matter of national, regional, and global security."[53]
September 9, 2013: Despite hearing opposition from his constituents, Connolly announced his support for intervention in Syria. Connolly and Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wrote an amendment that attempted to win support for the strikes by limiting force. Connolly said, “It’s unpopular. I certainly listen. I like to believe the resolution I drafted reflects some of the concerns: limited time frame, no boots on the ground.”[54]

Opposition

Republicans

September 3, 2013: Amash said, "I don’t think the American people are ready to go to war based on circumstantial evidence. The case for going to war is not that strong, in any event. … The issue has to remain whether this is in the interests of the United States to get involved. If we go there, are we going to cause more bloodshed or less? That’s not clear to me.”[55]
August 27, 2013: Amash said it would be illegal for the White House to launch a military strike against Syria without congressional approval. Amash used his Twitter account to respond to the news that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had been consulted by the Obama administration about the potential use of force against Syria. He said that if Boehner believed the president would use force, the speaker should call the House back to Washington to debate and vote on that decision.[56]
September 3, 2013: DesJarlais opposed military strikes on Syria in retaliation for Syria's chemical weapon attacks. He said, "My questions were, what is our plan and what is our endgame? And is there a direct threat to America and its allies? … I don't think there's any guarantee that this conflict won't escalate, and I think there would absolutely be unintended consequences. I think it's shortsighted to launch a limited strike without expecting it. ... If there is a mass genocide going on, I think the world will act, but right now, the evidence I've looked at does not indicate that what has happened on Aug. 21 would indicate a need for a U.S. strike over the past year. I don't think there was a seminal moment on Aug. 21 that would mandate an American intervention."[57]

Democrats

September 9, 2013: Gabbard announced that she was against intervention in Syria. She said, “I am sickened and outraged by the carnage and loss of lives caused by the use of chemical weapons in Syria. It is with gravity that I have carefully considered all the facts, arguments, and evidence and soberly weighed concerns regarding our national security and moral responsibility. As a result, I have come to the conclusion that a U.S. military strike against Syria would be a serious mistake.” [58]
  • Letter from Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) signed by 50 House Democrats:
August 29, 2013: Fifty House Democrats signed a letter written by Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) calling for a congressional resolution on strikes and cautioning that the dire situation in Syria "should not draw us into an unwise war—especially without adhering to our constitutional requirements." The letter also called on the Obama administration to work with the U.N. Security Council to build international consensus condemning the alleged use of chemical weapons.[59][60]

Bipartisan letter

  • Letter from members of the House:
August 28, 2013: At least 65 members of the House—55 Republicans and 10 Democrats—signed a letter asking Obama to consult Congress before taking military action in Syria. The letter stated, "We strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria. Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution." The letter was originally circulated by Reps. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) and Michael McCaul (R-Texas).[61]

Public opinion on the use of force in Syria

According to a Gallup poll conducted September 3-4, 2013, 43 percent of respondents opposed strikes in Syria because they said that it did not concern the U.S. and that the U.S. did not need to start a new war.[62]

"After reports that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons to kill civilians in that country, Congress is considering a resolution to authorize limited U.S. military action in Syria. The resolution only authorizes military action for 60 to 90 days and it bars the use of U.S. troops in a combat role in Syria. Do you think Congress should or should not pass this resolution?"
Poll Should pass Should not passNo opinionMargin of ErrorSample Size
CNN
September 6-8, 2013
 39%59%2%+/-31,022
"U.S. airstrikes in Syria"
Poll Favor OpposeDon't knowMargin of ErrorSample Size
Pew Research Center
August 29-September 1, 2013
 29%48%23%+/-3.71,000

International positions on the use of force in Syria

Support

  • French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault:
  • September 4, 2013: French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said that France had to take action against Syria. He told the National Assembly, "In the face of barbarity, passiveness cannot be an option, not for France in any case. ... France will not act alone and will link its actions to those of other partners, beginning with the United States. We are also counting on the support of Europeans and countries in the region, especially those at the heart of the Arab League."[63]

Opposition

  • Pope Francis:
  • September 5, 2013: Pope Francis sent Russian President Vladimir Putin a letter for the leaders attending the G20 summit. The Pope wrote, "It is regrettable that, from the very beginning of the conflict in Syria, one-sided interests have prevailed and in fact hindered the search for a solution that would have avoided the senseless massacre now unfolding." He called for "a peaceful solution through dialogue and negotiation."[64]
  • Russian President Vladimir Putin:
  • September 4, 2013: Although he would not say what he would do if the U.S. attacked Syria, Vladimir Putin warned the U.S. against doing so. He added, "We have our ideas about what we will do and how we will do it in case the situation develops toward the use of force or otherwise. We have our plans."[65]

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 CNN, "Daraa: The spark that lit the Syrian flame," March 1, 2012
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 BBC, "Syria profile," accessed September 4, 2013
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 CBC News, "Syria's Assad says 'no evidence' of chemical weapons use," September 8, 2013
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 The Washington Post, "Obama says U.S. will take military action against Syria, pending Congress’s approval," accessed April 11, 2017
  5. ↑ Politico, "Tough Hill vote on Syria fades," accessed September 14, 2013
  6. ↑ The New York Times, "U.S. and Russia Reach Deal to Destroy Syria’s Chemical Arms," accessed April 11, 2017
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 BBC.com, "Syria: The story of the conflict," accessed April 10, 2017
  8. ↑ Vox, "The war in Syria, explained," accessed April 10, 2017
  9. ↑ The Economist, "Why Russia is an ally of Assad," accessed April 10, 2017
  10. ↑ State.gov, "Syria Sanctions," accessed April 11, 2017
  11. ↑ State.gov, "Syria Sanctions," accessed April 11, 2017
  12. ↑ CNN, "Obama warns Syria not to cross 'red line,'" accessed April 10, 2017
  13. ↑ CNN, "Syria's war: Everything you need to know about how we got here," accessed April 10, 2017
  14. ↑ Huffington Post, "Syria Will Sign Chemical Weapons Convention, Declare Arsenal, Foreign Ministry Says," accessed April 11, 2017
  15. ↑ Syrian Refugees, "A Snapshot of the Crisis in the Middle East and Europe," accessed December 14, 2016
  16. ↑ Pew Research Center, "U.S. admits record number of Muslim refugees in 2016," October 5, 2016
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 The Daily Beast, "Senate’s War Resolution Gives Obama 90 Days to Strike Syria," accessed April 11, 2017
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Congress.gov, "S.J.Res.21," accessed April 11, 2017
  19. ↑ Politico, "Tough Hill vote on Syria fades," accessed September 14, 2013
  20. ↑ The New York Times, "U.S. and Russia Reach Deal to Destroy Syria’s Chemical Arms," accessed April 11, 2017
  21. ↑ Politico, "Biden cancels Panama trip to focus on Syria," accessed September 12, 2013
  22. ↑ CNN, "Vladimir Putin's comments on American exceptionalism, Syria cause a fuss," accessed September 12, 2013
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 NPR, "Breakthrough? Syria Hints It Might Give Up Chemical Weapons," accessed September 10, 2013
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 Politico, "President Obama to visit Senate Democrats on Tuesday," accessed September 9, 2013
  25. ↑ Politico, "Hill's Syria strike opponents meet," accessed September 10, 2013
  26. ↑ Washington Post, "Full Transcript: President Obama’s Sept. 10 speech on Syria," September 10, 2013
  27. ↑ Washington Post, "Reid formally introduces Syria resolution," accessed September 6, 2013
  28. ↑ Reuters, "U.S. resolution on Syria strike passes first hurdle in Senate," accessed September 5, 2013
  29. ↑ The Daily Beast, "Senate Breaks Own Rules in Rush to Vote on Syria War," accessed September 5, 2013
  30. ↑ MSNBC, "Obama: ‘I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,'" accessed April 11, 2017
  31. ↑ The Washington Post, "More than 1,400 killed in Syrian chemical weapons attack, U.S. says," accessed April 11, 2017
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Politico, "Lawmakers: White House Syria briefings a flop," accessed September 12, 2013
  33. ↑ The Washington Post, "Sen. Bob Corker: U.S. action in Syria is ‘imminent,'" August 26, 2013
  34. ↑ Politico, "U.S.-Russia Syria deal: Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham slam agreement," accessed September 14, 2013
  35. ↑ Washington Post, "Sen. John McCain: Russia not serious on Syria," accessed September 15, 2013
  36. ↑ Fox News, "Senate panel votes to authorize Syria strike," accessed September 6, 2013
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 Politico, "John McCain: Syria ‘no’ vote would be ‘catastrophic,'" September 2, 2013 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "syria" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "syria" defined multiple times with different content
  38. ↑ Politico, "Harry Reid: 'We should have this debate,'" accessed September 9, 2013
  39. ↑ CNN, "Vladimir Putin's comments on American exceptionalism, Syria cause a fuss," accessed September 12, 2013
  40. ↑ NJ.com, "Sen. Menendez to hold hearings on whether to attack Syria," accessed September 3, 2013
  41. ↑ Huffington Post, "Syria Vote: Mitch McConnell Opposes Strike, Slams Obama (VIDEO)," accessed September 10, 2013
  42. ↑ Politico, "Pigs fly, Ted Cruz full of Obama praise," accessed September 12, 2013
  43. ↑ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Ron Johnson explains vote against resolution on Syria strike," accessed September 5, 2013
  44. ↑ Politico, "Ron Johnson: Obama ‘not leading’ on Syria," accessed September 2, 2013
  45. ↑ Politico, "Rand Paul: 'Advantage Putin!'" accessed September 12, 2013
  46. ↑ Politico, "Rand Paul plan binds Hill approval, Syria," accessed September 4, 2013
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 Politico, "Rand Paul: Syria 'objective is stalemate,'" accessed August 30, 2013
  48. ↑ Des Moines Register, "Harkin urges caution on Syria military action," accessed September 2, 2013
  49. ↑ Politico, "Joe Manchin, Brian Schatz ‘no’ on Syria resolution," accessed September 9, 2013
  50. ↑ Politico, "House leaders back Obama call for action in Syria," accessed September 3, 2013
  51. ↑ The Hill, "Pelosi presses case on Syria," accessed September 6, 2013
  52. ↑ Politico, "Pelosi sends second letter to House Dems on Syria," accessed September 5, 2013
  53. ↑ Politico, "Nancy Pelosi sends Dear Colleague urging Syria action," accessed September 4, 2013
  54. ↑ Washington Post, "Rep. Gerald E. Connolly faces constituents’ ire in making the case for striking Syria," accessed September 9, 2013
  55. ↑ Politico, "Justin Amash takes aim at John McCain," accessed September 5, 2013
  56. ↑ Washington Post, "Amash: Syria strike ‘unquestionably unconstitutional’ without congressional approval," accessed August 28, 2013
  57. ↑ Nooga.com, "Rep. Scott DesJarlais opposes Syria intervention, Rep. Chuck Fleischmann still undecided," accessed September 4, 2013
  58. ↑ Politico, "Tulsi Gabbard: Military strike a 'mistake,'" accessed September 9, 2013
  59. ↑ Office of Barbara Lee, "Lee Letter to President Obama," accessed September 2, 2013
  60. ↑ Washington Post, "More than 50 House Democrats also want Syria strike resolution," accessed September 2, 2013
  61. ↑ Yahoo News, "65 Lawmakers Ask Obama to Consult on Syria," accessed September 5, 2013
  62. ↑ Gallup, "In U.S., Opponents Say Action in Syria Not America's Concern," accessed September 9, 2013
  63. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Inaction on Syria not an option, French leader tells lawmakers," accessed September 5, 2013
  64. ↑ Yahoo News, "Military solution in Syria would be futile, Pope tells G20," accessed September 5, 2013
  65. ↑ The Guardian, "'We have our plans': Vladimir Putin warns US against Syria military action," accessed April 10, 2017
v • e
United States Congress
BackgroundCongressLogo.png
States' delegations
Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming • Non-voting members
Special elections
2026
2024
2022
2020
2018
2016
2014
Sessions
Joint Congressional committees
U.S. Senate Committees
U.S. House Committees
Super PACs
Personal Gain Index
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_Syria,_2009-2017&oldid=8596345"