Britain rules out military action in Syria
By The Associated Press
Published: Friday, Aug. 30, 2013, 12:01 a.m.
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday prepared for the possibility of unilateral military action against Syria within days as Britain opted out in a stunning vote by Parliament.
Facing skepticism at home, too, the administration shared intelligence with lawmakers aimed at convincing them that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people and must be punished.
Despite roadblocks in forming an international coalition, Obama appeared undeterred, and advisers said he would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own.
“The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
Invoking the specter of the Iraq War, British lawmakers rejected military action against Syria, dealing a shocking blow to Prime Minister David Cameron.
After a marathon eight-hour debate, Cameron lost a vote that was initially seen as a symbolic motion setting up a final vote in the days ahead authorizing force against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime. But the surprise loss of even the weaker piece of legislation — by a vote of 285 -272, including a group of rebels from Cameron's Conservative Party in opposition — appeared to signal what analysts called the biggest rupture in the U.S.-British “special relationship” since the 1982 Falklands War.
Technically, Cameron could still authorize military strikes over the objection of Parliament, but top government officials — including the prime minister himself — indicated that was not an option.
“It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action,” Cameron said after losing the vote. “I get that, and the government will act accordingly.”
For Cameron, it was the most powerful setback of his premiership. One lawmaker shouted “resign” as the vote was read out.
The door, observers said, could be open to indirect military cooperation, including intelligence-sharing. But any direct military involvement — such as British missiles being launched into Syria — now appeared largely out of question.
Even before the vote in London, the United States was preparing to act without formal authorization from the United Nations, where Russia has blocked efforts to seek a resolution authorizing the use of force, or from Capitol Hill. But the United State had expected Britain, a major ally, to join in the effort.
Top U.S. officials spoke with certain lawmakers for more than 90 minutes in a teleconference evening to explain why they believe Assad's government was the culprit in a suspected chemical attack last week. Lawmakers from both parties have been pressing Obama to provide a legal rationale for military action and specify objectives, as well as to lay out a firm case linking Assad to the attack.
A number of lawmakers raised questions in the briefing about how the administration would finance a military operation as the Pentagon grapples with automatic spending cuts and reduced budgets.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a participant on the call, said in a statement that the administration presented a “broad range of options” for dealing with Syria but failed to offer a single plan, timeline, strategy or explanation of how it would pay for any military operation.
It remains to be seen whether any skeptics were swayed by the call, given the expectation in advance that officials would hold back classified information to protect intelligence sources and methods.
“The main thing was that they have no doubt that Assad's forces used chemical weapons,” New York Rep. Eliot Engel, top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a supporter of Obama's course, said after the briefing.
But he said the officials did not provide much new evidence of that.
“They said they have (intercepted) some discussions and some indications from a high-level official,” he said, and that they possess intelligence showing material being moved in advance of the attack.
He called the tone “respectful. There was no shouting. No one was accusing the administration of doing anything wrong.”
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the briefing “reaffirmed for me that a decisive and consequential U.S. response is justified and warranted to protect Syrians, as well as to send a global message that chemical weapons attacks in violation of international law will not stand.”
The Washington Post contributed to this report.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Bipartisan Senate bill would put kibosh on pricey portraits
- Feds to collect public comment on plan to permit cellphone service on airplanes
- Veteran accused oflifting peers’ IDs
- Commuter railroad in Bronx crash to undergo federal scrutiny
- Colo. boy, 6, no longer guilty of ‘sexual harassment’
- Boehner’s rant brings budget deal
- Embassy bombings trial might use 2 juries, judge says
- GOP makes good on threat to slow confirmations
- Fawcett bling tops Kelly’s ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ suit
- Missing American in Iran was on unapproved CIA mission
- House OKs slashing contractor salary cap nearly in half; Senate likely to follow suit