Congressman Gregory W. Meeks Full Committee Hearing: Syria: Weighing the Obama Administration’s Response

Remarks and Questions
Congressman Gregory W. Meeks
Full Committee Hearing:
Syria: Weighing the Obama Administration’s Response
September 4, 2013

The President’s decision to come to Congress for authorization for the use of U.S. military force to address the use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces is the appropriate decision constitutionally and morally. As a member of Congress there is no more grave consideration than whether or not to act militarily. Too often in our nation’s modern history we have had incidences where president’s have acted without proper consultation with Congress – even when time permitted, and without proper consideration of the enduring consequences on America’s global standing and strength. This has been to our detriment.

In making my determination on the use of force, I see the short and long term interest and security of America as my paramount focus. To that end, I believe that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime is indeed a flagrant violation of international norms against the use of such weapons, and this and other repugnant acts by Syrian forces are indeed against U.S. interests and against the interests of the international community. Therefore, it is both in the U.S. interest and the international communities interest to ensure that the regime’s violations are addressed. Acting in any way short of a multilaterally supported military effort is not the best course of action for America.

Regional countries, our NATO and non-NATO allies, the 189 signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and all nations that respect international norms are equally obligated to address the Assad regime’s transgressions collectively as an international community. Given that there has been broad global condemnation of the attacks in Syria, it concerns me greatly that what we are currently considering is more or less unilateral action rather than multilaterally supported military intervention.

Secretary Kerry:

Secretary Kerry on August 30, 2013 you stated: “It matters today that we are working as an international community to rid the world of the worst weapons…It matters to our security and the security of our allies…and it matters deeply to the credibility and future interests of the United States of America and our allies...and it is directly related to our credibility and whether countries still believe the United States when it says something.” Mr. Secretary it does matter to our credibility, but it also a matter of the credibility of the international community. The use of chemical weapons is a barbaric act that affects us all. Therefore, the United States must act multilaterally, if we act at all. Where is the international community? Where is the broad willingness to join us in rejecting the contemptible act of the Assad regime by supporting limited military reaction?

During the Senate hearing yesterday you indicated that while Russia has obstructed efforts to react to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons there are other ways that Russia may yet prove helpful. Please elaborate on what if any role Russia has or can play in bringing about a political solution in Syria. How is Russia being engaged given the Obama administrations correct assertion that there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria?

General Dempsey:

I have serious concerns about any action that isn’t broadly supported internationally. One of my concerns is the possibility of unintended consequences including the prospects of prolonged military engagement. In mid August (letter dated August 19, 2013 to Rep. Engel) you expressed that there are certainly actions that the U.S. could take short of tipping the balance of the Syrian conflict that could impose a cost on them for abhorrent behavior. You also indicated that at least some of those options would, “escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict…it would not be militarily decisive, but it would commit us decisively to the conflict.”

Can you elaborate on what you meant when you stated that we could be decisively committed to the conflict? If the U.S. commits to a limited military strike in Syria, how do we minimize the possibility of a prolonged commitment? If the international support remains as limited as it is now, then aren’t the risks of a longer engagement more pronounced?