This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world/middleeast/syria.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Kerry Casts Obama’s Syria Decision as ‘Courageous’ Kerry Casts Obama’s Syria Decision as ‘Courageous’
(about 7 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry, delivering a full-throated defense on Sunday of President Obama’s plan to delay military action against Syria, called the move to seek Congressional approval a “courageous decision” and said the administration had evidence that the neurotoxin sarin was used in the Aug. 21 chemical attack that killed more than 1,400 people. WASHINGTON — The Obama administration launched a full-press campaign on Sunday for Congressional approval of its plan to carry out a punitive strike against the Syrian government.
One day after Mr. Obama stunned the world by halting what had seemed an inexorable push toward a cruise missile attack, Mr. Kerry, who has been the administration’s most forceful advocate for intervention, was left to defend the surprising reversal in a string of appearances on Sunday morning talk shows. The appearances — Mr. Kerry was a guest on five morning shows — underscored the administration’s tenuous position after a week of fits and starts over Syria. The lobbying blitz stretched from Capitol Hill, where the administration held its first classified briefing on Syria open to all lawmakers, to Cairo, where Secretary of State John Kerry reached Arab diplomats by phone in an attempt to rally international support for a firm response to the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus.
“I think the president realized in consultations with Congress that people wanted to weigh in,” Mr. Kerry said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And he believed, after thinking about it, that the United States of America is much stronger when we act in concert.” Mr. Kerry appeared on five morning talk shows, announcing new evidence — that the neurotoxin sarin had been used in the attack that killed more than 1,400 people — and expressing confidence that Congress would ultimately back the president’s plan for military action.
With many lawmakers openly skeptical, Mr. Kerry predicted that Congress would not “turn its back” on its obligation to uphold international norms against the use of chemical weapons. He said that hair and blood samples from first responders who were helping victims in East Damascus “have tested positive for signatures of sarin,” the first time anyone in the administration has pinpointed a particular cause. Behind closed doors on Capitol Hill, the administration presented classified intelligence to any senator or House member who wished to attend. About 80 did, but some from both parties emerged from the briefing convinced that the draft language authorizing military action would need to be tightened.
In recent days, as he has built a case for intervention, Mr. Kerry has called the attack a “moral obscenity” and branded President Bashar al-Assad of Syria “a thug and a murderer.” On Sunday, he likened Mr. Assad to two other dictators — Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein – who had violated the international prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. The rush of activity came a day after Mr. Obama’s surprise decision to seek the authorization of Congress for a strike on the Syrian government.
On “Fox News Sunday,” Mr. Kerry issued a warning to Mr. Assad not to be “foolish enough” to take advantage of Mr. Obama’s delay. He suggested that the president would not wait for approval from lawmakers, who are on recess until Sept. 9, should another attack occur before they returned to Washington. Ahead of an Arab League meeting in Cairo, Mr. Kerry sought to mobilize backing for American-led military action at a meeting the group held on Sunday night.
“If the Assad regime were to be foolish enough to attack yet again and to do something in the meantime,” Mr. Kerry said, “of course the president of the United States knows he has the power to do this, and I assume the president would move very, very rapidly.” A statement that was issued by the league asserted that the Syrian government was “fully responsible” for the chemical weapons attack and asked the United Nations and the international community “to take the necessary measures against those who committed this crime.”
Mr. Kerry said on Sunday that the president believed Congressional backing was necessary to send a message to nations like Iran and North Korea. He also invoked American interests in protecting Israel, Jordan and other allies in the Middle East. He suggested Congress cannot “have it both ways” by demanding a say in the decision and then refusing to uphold the convention against the use of chemical weapons. To the satisfaction of American officials, the statement did not explicitly mention the United Nations Security Council or assert that military action could be taken only with its approval. But it stopped short of a direct call for Western military action against Syria.
“Congress has a responsibility here, too,” Mr. Kerry said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He added: “Iran will read importantly what we decide to do with respect to the enforcement of this convention in Syria. Israel is at risk. Jordan is at risk. Turkey is at risk. The region is at risk, and we believe the Congress of the United States will do what is responsible.” As the meeting got under way, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, urged the international community to stop the Syrian government’s “aggression” against its people.
Securing Arab League support for a potential American attack has become an important element of the Obama administration’s plan to try to win Congressional support. Mr. Kerry has been in touch with his Saudi counterpart and the leader of the Syrian opposition regarding a meeting scheduled for Sunday night in Cairo. Saudi Arabia has been one of the principal supporters of the Syrian opposition, and Mr. Kerry consulted by phone on Sunday with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the head of Saudi Arabia’s national security council.
The American administration’s hope is that a statement of support from the Arab League can make up for the British Parliament’s decision on Thursday not to join any American-led attack. Such a statement would enable the administration to argue to Congress that it has strong regional support for a potential strike. Mr. Obama was caught off guard last week when the Parliament, in a stinging rebuke to Prime Minister David Cameron, said it would not back a strike. The Obama administration’s calculation has been that a call for tough action by the Arab diplomats would enable the White House to argue to members of Congress that it had regional backing for military action and would make up, at least politically, for the British decision on Thursday not to join the American-led attack.
One critical question that has been raised by Mr. Obama’s turnabout is what effect the delay might have if the United States eventually used force. But Syria’s government on Sunday defiantly mocked Mr. Obama’s decision to turn to Congress, saying it was a sign of weakness. A state-run newspaper, Al Thawra, called the action “the start of the historic American retreat” and said Mr. Obama had put off an attack because of a “sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies.”
Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the Army, and other military experts have argued that time can work to Mr. Assad’s advantage as the Syrian forces will have more opportunities to disperse, hunker down and move their assets into civilian areas that they know will not be struck. Syria’s deputy foreign minister, Faisal Mekdad, told reporters in Damascus, “It is clear there was a sense of hesitation and disappointment in what was said by President Barack Obama yesterday. And it is also clear there was a sense of confusion, as well.”
By waiting for Congress, Mr. Obama risks more horrific news from Syria, which could make him look weak. Former Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut expressed concern on Sunday that Mr. Assad would also use the delay to protect his forces. In some measure, part of the challenge that the Obama administration faces in trying to rally support at home for a punitive strike in Syria is the result of the deep ambivalence it has expressed about becoming involved in the conflict.
“While we are waiting, he is dispersing his critical assets,” he said on Fox News. Part of the White House strategy for securing Congressional support now is to emphasize not only what Syria did, but also how a failure to act against Syria might embolden enemies of Israel like Iran and Hezbollah.
Congress could also vote down Mr. Obama’s request, which would make him the first president in modern times to lose a vote seeking authorization for the use of force. Also speaking on Fox News, Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York and a former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that if a vote in the House were held today, Mr. Obama would likely lose as a result of the “isolationist wing.” Mr. Kerry, in his five television appearances, also emphasized that it was important for Congress to pass a measure authorizing the use of force to send a firm message to nations like Iran that the United States would not tolerate the fielding of a nuclear device and to safeguard Israel’s security.
The House and Senate are expected to vote sometime after they return, although Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, said he would begin hearings this week. Speaking on Saturday night, after Mr. Obama delivered his statement in the Rose Garden, Mr. Reid called a strike against Syria “justified and necessary.” “I do not believe the Congress of the United States will turn its back on this moment,” Mr. Kerry said on the NBC program “Meet The Press.” “The challenge of Iran, the challenges of the region, the challenge of standing up for and standing beside our ally, Israel, helping to shore up Jordan — all of these things are very, very powerful interests and I believe Congress will pass it.”
Republicans, though, seem deeply divided. Some, like the House speaker, John A. Boehner, have praised the president for seeking backing in Congress. But Mr. King argues that Mr. Obama is undermining his authority as commander in chief, and said that if the president wants approval from Congress, he should call lawmakers back to Washington for a special session. One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called the American Israel Political Affairs Committee “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress have to be saying, “If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line” — against catastrophic use of chemical weapons — “we’re in trouble.”
“This is a clear failure of leadership,” Mr. King said. Israeli officials have been concerned by Mr. Obama’s decision, but have been mostly restrained in their public comments. Mr. Kerry talked on Sunday with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.
Both the House and Senate are expected to have votes sometime after they return from recess on Sept. 9, although Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, said the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would convene hearings on the Syrian issue Tuesday afternoon.
While Mr. Kerry said he was confident Congress would vote to approve the use of force, Representative Peter T. King, the New York Republican and a former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that if a vote in the House were held today, Mr. Obama would likely lose as a result of the “isolationist wing.”
Much of the debate concerned the terms of the resolution the White House has proposed for authorizing the use of force.
Representative Chris Van Hollen, a senior Democrat from Maryland, said that while the administration’s resolution limited the purpose of an attack to stopping the use of weapons of mass destruction, the measure left the military too much “running room” and did not set limits on the duration of the military operation.
Congressional advocates of strong action to help the Syrian opposition, in contrast, have complained that the attack that President Obama appears to be planning seemed to be too limited to have enough of an impact.
Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both Republicans, have warned that they would not support “isolated military strikes in Syria” that are not part of a broader strategy to shift the momentum on the battlefield. Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with Mr. McCain on Monday at the White House.
As the White House consults with Congress, Mr. Kerry is planning a new round of diplomacy. Next weekend, Mr. Kerry is planning to meet with European Union diplomats in Vilnius, Lithuania, and he is also planning to meet in Rome with Arab League diplomats.
After Mr. Obama’s change in direction, the reaction in Britain and France has largely been one of surprise and confusion.
The French government, which had said on Friday that it would support a military strike, said it would wait for the American Congress to vote before taking any military action, though it is highly unlikely Paris would act alone.
President François Hollande still intends to proceed with a military intervention of some kind in Syria, French officials said Sunday, but France will await the decision of Congress before taking action.
“We cannot leave this crime against humanity unpunished,” said Interior Minister Manuel Valls, speaking on French radio. But given logistical questions of “intervention capacity,” Mr. Valls said, France must “await the decision of the United States.”
“France cannot go forward alone,” he said. “There must be a coalition.”
A major question for military experts is what effect the delay in acting might have if force is eventually used by the United States.
Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the Army and a retired four-star general, said in an interview that time would work to the advantage of President Bashar al-Assad as the Syrian forces would have more opportunities to move their artillery, missiles and other equipment into civilian areas that they knew would not be struck.
Even Syrian command centers that cannot be moved, he said, would be emptied of their sensitive equipment and personnel.
But Mr. Obama said that he had been assured by Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, that a delay would not affect the United States military’s ability to carry out a strike.

Jonathan Weisman contributed reporting from Washington, David D. Kirkpatrick from Cairo, and Steven Erlanger from London.