War in Syria: Obama Convinces Republican 'Hawks' While Armed Forces Remain Opposed

John McCain and fellow Republican Senator Lindsey Graham leave the impression that they are ready to offer their support for the military mission in Damascus. Tensions are mounting between Secretary of State John Kerry, who supports the idea of an intervention, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, who is mindful of Army generals’ disapproving stance.

They called it the “flood the zone strategy,” a massive wildfire strategy developed to gain the authorization of Congress to launch a military strike on Syria. This time around, Barack Obama is doing that which for years many criticized him for not doing — developing personal relations with members of Congress and senators to obtain support for the attack against Damascus. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry will testify at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday. Of all the politicians currently working for Obama’s administration, John Kerry is perhaps the one who has backed the intervention the most. Briefings and meetings between officials of the administration and members of Congress have multiplied at Capitol Hill. Obama should succeed in obtaining the support of two Republican “hawks,” Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

It was precisely this meeting between Obama and the two Republicans that the White House considered fundamental in obtaining the authorization of Congress. In the past few days, McCain and Graham threatened to vote against the military strike if Obama’s resolution did not hint at a more decisive attack against Damascus’s troops. Yesterday, as the senators were departing from their meeting with the president, they explained that their approval was not yet certain — “We still have significant concerns,” stated McCain — but they gave the impression that they were ready to offer their support. “If the Congress were to reject a resolution like this, after the president of the United States has already committed to action, the consequences would be catastrophic,” explained McCain. “If we don’t take action, Iran will take that as a sign of weakness on the part of the United States,” added Graham.*

In exchange for their support, the two Republican “hawks” seem to have obtained two things from Obama: on one hand, a more incisive military action plan with the aim of weakening, to a “large” extent, the artillery and aviation equipment with which Assad’s government is said to have launched its sarin gas attack, and on the other hand, the promise to help the Syrian rebels considerably. In particular, Obama has attempted to reassure the more interventionist Republicans, explaining that the first 50 units of anti-Assad activists, trained by the CIA outside of the United States, are at this moment penetrating Syria’s borders. To obtain the support of the moderate factions of Congress, above all the Democrats that fear the start of a new war disaster such as the war in Iraq, Obama said he is willing to modify terms set out in the draft resolution sent to Congress, adding an explicit promise not to send ground troops to Syria.

Forever trying to win over the approval of the most unruly of his fellow party members, the president organized a conference call with 127 Democratic members of Congress during which time the details of the evidence, which would, according to the American administration, incriminate Assad, was once again presented. As McCain and Graham were leaving their meeting at the White House, they explained that Obama and his fellow party members had still not explicitly referred to the military targets that would be struck during the attack.

Despite the “wildfire strategy” to win the support of Congress, the path to an intervention in Syria continues to be fraught with distress. In addition to the objections and doubts expressed by senators and members of Congress, in the last hours rumors of possible internal discord and division within the administration have come to light. Nonofficial White House sources explained that Obama is giving the message that he is acting autonomously and independently. “The president’s decision about Syria was self-directed,” explained sources at the Associated Press.* At the moment the decision was made to go to Congress for authorization of the intervention, neither Kerry nor Hagel were present in Obama’s office at the White House. Kerry and Hagel were informed of the fact only after the decision had been made.

The president seems to be molding his own foreign policies without consulting with the Department of State and the Pentagon, preferring instead to rely on the judgment of old friends and colleagues such as Denis McDonough, who is now Obama’s chief of staff, and Susan Rice, national security officer. Divisions and open disagreement are also brewing between Kerry and Hagel. Of all the members of Obama’s administration, Kerry has perhaps been the one that has been the most pro-war in Syria. “History will judge us very harshly if we close our eyes against a ruthless dictator who used weapons of mass destruction,” said Kerry. While on tour in Asia, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has been very vocal in talks regarding the intervention in Syria and appears a lot more skeptical and worried about possible developments. Hagel stated that American troops “are ready” but in private has had to listen to the doubts and protest voiced by several American generals, above all Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In a series of exchanges with members of Congress, Dempsey explained that in all likelihood even a limited attack against Damascus would have unforeseen consequences. “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next,” Dempsey wrote to Democratic Senator Carl Levin. “Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.” Dempsey added that an attack against Assad would surely claim the lives of civilians and would lead to the marked increase in terrorist activity in the area by “extremists: al-Qaida, Hezbollah and Iran.” In other words, the members of the armed forces are holding back. “If Americans take ownership of this, this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war,” explained General James Mattis, retired commander of the United States Central Command.

*Editor’s note: the original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.