What's the big deal with Syria?

A good place to start is that civilians have been dying ever since Bashar al-Assad responded to nonviolent protests with bullets more than two years ago. 

In July 2012 the regime started a bombing campaign on rebel-held towns, and a prime example of sheer brutality of this tactic happened in northern Syria this week:

Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway of BBC reported from the site where ten people died and dozens suffered "napalm-like" burns after a Syrian fighter jet dropped an incendiary bomb on a playground.

Check it out (report starts at 0:33):

Ian Panell notes: "Throughout this conflict, gatherings of people outside have been consistently been bombed — outside bakeries, markets, hospitals, and schools."

One Syrian man told BBC: "Dear United Nations ... Don't you see this? What do you need to see? We are just human beings. We just want to live, you know? Isn't it our right to live?"

For the last year it has seemed that Assad would be largely unrestricted to bomb his people indefinitely — that is, until thousands of people were gassed in the suburbs of the capital.

That's where the reality check for most of the world, including Assad, comes in.

Horrific acts have been committed by the regime on its own people for 29 months, but the West hasn't intervened in a direct* manner.

Human Rights Watch "has recorded multiple instances of Syrian government use of air-delivered incendiary bombs since November 2012, including in a previous school attack."

But as soon as poison gas was used on thousands of civilians while they slept, America and France decided that the West must act to uphold the minimal requirements for the crime against humanity of using poison gas on innocent people.

As President Obama told PBS Newshour:

"... we want the Assad regime to understand that by using chemical weapons on a large scale against your own people – against women, against infants, against children, that you are not only breaking international norms and standards of decency, but you’re also creating a situation where U.S. national interests are affected, and that needs to stop."

In effect, the events of August 21 provided the West with a legitimate opportunity to curb Assad's systematic ruthlessness.

As one intelligence official told Foreign Policy: "We don't know exactly why it happened. We just know it was pretty fucking stupid."

*Indirect action by the West has included America, Britain, and France working with Saudi Arabia and Jordan to "set up and run an undisclosed joint operations center in Jordan to train vetted Syrian rebels in tactical warfare methods, intelligence, counterintelligence, and weapons application," as reported by Michael Weiss.

The CIA, which is present on Syria's three largest borders, has been funneling arms shipments to rebels since at least June 2o12.

SEE ALSO: IAN BREMMER: The US Has To Attack Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

President Barack Obama said Saturday that the United States "should" take military action in Syria, but that he would seek approval for such action from Congress.

"I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress," Obama said in a statement at the Rose Garden.

Obama said he is "ready to act," and he is challenging Congress to follow his lead. He maintained that he does not need to seek military approval, repeatedly citing the atrocity of the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons on its own people.

"We lead with the belief that right makes might. Not the other way around," Obama said. "Now's the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments."

It was unclear, immediately, as to whether Congress would return immediately from its recess. Congress is not scheduled to be in session until Sept. 9. Obama is scheduled to hold various conference calls and briefings with members of Congress over the next two days.

The limited strike without "boots on the ground" would not be time-sensitive. It could happen "tomorrow, one week, or a month from now," he said.

Obama's comments follow a stern statement yesterday from Secretary of State John Kerry about the need for the "murderer" and "thug" Assad to be punished for the chemical weapons attacks on his own people.

For more than two years, the Obama administration has called for a regime change in Syria. But it didn't support any military action until the latest chemical-weapons attack, which the U.S. says came from the Assad regime and killed 1,429 people, including 426 children.

The White House also released a declassified report Friday detailing with "high confidence" the assessment that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against its people.

"We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N.inspectors obtaining evidence," the report read.

Despite Obama's insistence on action, he had faced growing calls for restraint from allies and members of Congress. On Thursday, the British House of Commons unexpectedly rejected Prime Minister David Cameron's motion for military action.

Join the conversation about this story »

You should really appreciate this three-day holiday weekend if you have one, because September is shaping up to be HUGE.

This afternoon we got the stunning news that Obama will seek Congressional authorization before striking Syria. A strike on Syria had been seen as imminent, so this seriously sets the calendar back, and creates a whole new story which is the vote in Congress on the Syria action. Congress gets back Sept. 9 (though, theoretically it could be called back before then), so this is going to be a long, developing story on a huge vote.

This comes on top of a whole bunch of other developments coming out of Washington:

• The government is due for shutdown unless Congress can pass a new Continuing Resolution (a budget).
• The Federal Reserve is expected to "taper" the pace of bond purchases (slow down quantitative easing).
• There's the August jobs report.
• The debt ceiling debate (we'll hit the debt ceiling in mid-October).
• Sometime in the next few weeks Obama will name the next Fed chief.

Oh, and September is historically the worst month for the stock market.

So yes, HUGE month coming up.

SEE ALSO: Obama to seek Congressional approval for strike in Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

In response to President Barack Obama's call for Congressional authorization for military action in Syria, House Republican leadership said Saturday that it would consider a measure the week of Sept. 9.

This means that the House will not return before its current recess ends.

Here's the full statement, from House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers:

“Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress.  We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised.  In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9^th.  This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people.”

It wasn't immediately clear what would be the plans for the Senate.

The big question, of course, is whether such a measure will pass the House, based on the combination of it being controlled by Republicans while featuring a number of anti-war Democrats. 

A senior Republican aide put the onus on Obama to sell military action to Congress.

"Whether or not it passes depends on the WH making the case to Congress, and — more importantly — the American people," the aide said in an email. "It will also require the White House to provide real answers to the questions that the Speaker and others have raised. "

Join the conversation about this story »

The United Nations team of chemical weapons inspectors who spent almost two weeks investigating the attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta in which hundreds of civilians died, have returned to their headquarters at The Hague in the Netherlands. There, they are beginning scientific analysis of samples designed to give a categoric answer to the question of whether a war crime was committed.

The team is now racing against the clock to complete the analysis, which is being carried out in two unidentified laboratories in Europe. The UN has been granted some breathing space by President Obama's surprise announcement that he will call a vote in Congress over military intervention, but the pressure remains intense for the team to report before any unilateral US air strikes are launched.

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, has asked the inspectors to expedite the work on the samples but has also made it clear that he will not be bullied into curtailing proper scientific processes. On Saturday, Ban promised through his official spokesperson that "whatever can be done to speed up the process is being done".

As the drum beat of possible unilateral military action by the US backed by France intensifies, the UN is perilously close to appearing irrelevant in the crisis. The security council is paralysed by disagreement between its five permanent members – the US and France on the side of military intervention, Russia and China opposed, and the UK staying on the sidelines after parliament voted against any action.

The UN inspection team has also been hampered by the mandate set for it in Syria by the general assembly and endorsed in a resolution from the security council. That instructed the dozen-strong team of chemical weapons experts and medical specialists to ascertain whether or not chemical weapons – probably nerve gas – had been deployed in Ghouta on 21 August.

But the mandate did not include any attempt to identify who carried out the attack or to apportion blame. Both sides in the conflict – the Syrian regime and rebel forces – have accused the other side of responsibility for the outrage.

"The mandate is the mandate," said Martin Nesirky, Ban's official spokesperson, when asked by reporters why the UN had not expanded its mission to include the question of culpability. He added: "The aim of the game here, the mandate, is very clear: to ascertain whether chemical weapons were used, not by whom."

The UN's role in attempting to defuse the threat of military action and steer all parties towards a diplomatic solution is also being undermined by the Obama administration, which has made it clear that it is prepared to go ahead with air strikes even before the inspection team produces its report. On Saturday, Obama said he was "comfortable" about ordering airstrikes without UN authorisation, on the grounds that the UN security council was "entirely paralysed" and incapable of providing leadership.

On Friday, the secretary of state, John Kerry, was almost openly disparaging of the UN effort, saying there was nothing that the inspection team could tell US intelligence experts that they did not already know.

Kerry said the US had gathered evidence that forces loyal to the Syrian government had spent three days preparing for the Ghouta attack and had launched chemical weapons via rockets sent from regime-controlled areas of the city. "All of these things we know, the American intelligence community has high confidence," he said.

Despite such undermining from Washington, the UN is trying to shore up its shaky position in the centre of the crisis. In a briefing at the UN building in New York on Saturday, Nesirky said the UN mission was "uniquely capable of establishing in an impartial and credible manner the facts of any chemical weapons used, based on evidence from the ground."

Ban spent Saturday morning locked in discussions with the UN disarmament chief, Angela Kane, who returned to New York from Damascus. The secretary general is also in regular contact with Dr Åke Sellström, the Swedish scientist who led the inspection team in Syria.

The secretary general has pledged that once they have completed their report into the Ghouta attack, the UN inspectors will return to Syria to investigate all other allegations of chemical weapons use in the country's civil war. The Syrian government has countered accusations that it is guilty of deploying chemical weapons against international law by accusing rebels of attacking its soldiers with nerve gas.

Though the chemical weapons inspectors are now safely out of Syria, there are still more than 1,000 UN workers still within the country. Nesirky said reports that the inspectors' departure had opened a window for US airstrikes were "grotesque and an affront to the more than 1,000 UN staff on the ground in Syria delivering humanitarian aid and who will continue to deliver humanitarian aid."

This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk

Join the conversation about this story »

On Friday, BI Politics' Josh Barro observed that the Obama administration presented compelling evidence tying an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack to the Syrian government but is "failing to explain why it follows that we should launch a military strike on Syria."

The president has decided that the U.S. should take military action, reportedly involving cruise-missile strikes, against the regime of Bashar al-Assad to uphold the international norm against using poison gas and enforce Obama's blurred“red line.”

Pentagon officials told The Wall Street Journal the planned attack would"deter and degrade" President Bashar al-Assad's security forces.

But that still doesn't answer the key question: "What do they think our intervention will do to reduce human suffering in Syria or anywhere else?"

Obama has only said that the U.S. plan "doesn’t, obviously end the death of innocent civilians inside of Syria."

But a limited strike, depending on the targets, could reduce human suffering in the 29-month conflict by deterring and degrading Assad's air superiority.

How bombing could, ironically, do some good

That kind of strike — beyond responding to the large scale use of chemical weapons — would potentially curb Assad's relentless bombing of civilians, the flow of supplies from Iran and Russia, and the resupplying of Syrian troops in various areas.

"Specific targets should include the Damascus-area headquarters, barracks and support facilities of the fourth and Republican Guard armored divisions, two units heavily involved in the bombardment of civilian areas," Jeffrey White of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank told Agence France-Presse (emphasis ours).

The location of Assad's Damascus-area headquarters, as well as the barracks and support facilities of the fourth and Republican Guard armored division, are in range of U.S. cruise missiles.

"Russian and Iranian military and commercial planes arrive daily to offload weapons (some of them advanced air or sea defense systems), ammunition, and personnel,"Interpreter Magazine Editor-in-Chief Michael D. Weiss explained in a detailed piece about degrading Assad.

And a detailed report by Chris Harmer of the Institute of the Study of War notes that only 100 Syrian Air Force fixed-wing planes are operable because all but six of the 27 airbases in Syria are either rebel controlled or fiercely contested.

So, even though the Obama administration hasn't explicitly explained how a limited strike would reduce suffering in Syria, that information is important to the upcoming Congressional debate over a military strike.

SEE ALSO: REALITY CHECK: Syria's Air War Includes Dropping 'Napalm-Like' Bombs On Playgrounds

Join the conversation about this story »

Following a chemical weapons attack in Syria on Aug. 21, tensions between the Assad regime and the west have risen dramatically — and we've seen a corresponding rise in social media talk over a possible U.S.-led response.

Quite interesting to note is the effective disappearance of the very big story surrounding ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who has been leaking documents detailing top-secret surveillance programs since June. 

Only two days ago, the entire budget of the U.S. intelligence community — the so-called "black budget"— was made public for the first time, thanks to those leaks. Despite these huge developments, and those still waiting to be revealed, it seems that Snowden and the NSA have fallen off the radar.

Here's a chart illustrating this from Topsy Analytics. As you can see, the rise of "Syria" mentions completely tower over any mentions of "NSA" or "Snowden." 

Join the conversation about this story »

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senior administration officials say President Barack Obama planned to take military action against Syria without congressional authorization, but told aides Friday night that he changed his mind.

Obama announced to the public Saturday that he wanted to launch a military strike, but that he first would seek approval from lawmakers.

The administration officials described a president overriding all his top national security advisers, who believed Obama had the authority to act on his own.

But these officials say the president spent much of the week wrestling with Congress' role in authorizing force and made the decision Friday night after a lengthy discussion with his chief of staff, Denis McDonough.

The administration officials requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss Obama's decision-making by name.

Join the conversation about this story »

President Barack Obama announced Saturday that he wants to launch a military strike on Syria, but he announced that he will seek Congressional authorization after Congress comes back from vacation on Sept. 9. But it's not obvious that Congress will grant said authorization.

One informed congressional observer tells Business Insider that the support will be there in the Senate but the House looks very iffy:

Senate should be ok to pass. But the House vote seems very difficult. Think about all of those House GOP members that want to avoid tough votes on the [continuing resolution], debt ceiling, farm bill, and immigration. They were trying to avoid these votes for their primaries and don't seem convinced an attack would be particularly useful. Now they have an even tougher vote in front of them coupled with the anti-war Dems. This is TARP on steroids. And remember how the Iraq votes realigned politics (ie Hillary vote to authorize which ultimately changed the dynamics in the Dem primary five years later). 

Basically, if you're a member of the House, in either party, it's a lot easier to come up with good political reasons to vote "no" on attacking Syria than "yes."

Democrats: In the current political environment, they have little reason to think voting against an attack will make them look "soft on terror," which is what they were most afraid of during the Iraq authorization vote 10 years ago. But they have good reason to fear the Hillary example: voting yes could cost them a primary election if things go wrong.

Republicans: War hawks are a far weaker force in GOP politics than they were 10 years ago. You don't have to be Ron Paul to defend a skeptical position on intervention anymore. And it's not that hard to make a case to a Republican primary electorate for why you opposed one of Barack Obama's initiatives.

That said, a very large share of members of the House are probably genuinely undecided right now on how to vote. The same observer noted that most public statements from members of Congress so far have been pointedly non-committal. Members have focused their comments on the importance of consulting with Congress or seeking a congressional vote; they have avoided commenting on where they actually stand on an attack itself.

Sen. Marco Rubio's (R-Fla.) statement is a perfect example: somehow, he finds a way to spend several hundred words lambasting the president's handling of the Syrian situation without actually taking a position on what should be done. Does Rubio even know how Rubio will vote?

If he and many other members have really not made up their minds yet, then the president has a shot to get authorization for his attack. But he's going to have to overcome unfavorable political terrain to do it.

Join the conversation about this story »

In a joint statement released Saturday, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) commended the president for seeking congressional approval for actions against Syria, but expressed strong disapproval of limited military action.

The senators wrote that they believe Obama is correct in the assessment that Assad has used chemical weapons and this requires a military response. But they have continued to call for a more robust military response to "shift the balance of power."

Here's the statement:

“We believe President Obama is correct that the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons requires a military response by the United States and our friends and allies. Since the President is now seeking Congressional support for this action, the Congress must act as soon as possible.

However, we cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the President's stated goal of Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests. Anything short of this would be an inadequate response to the crimes against humanity that Assad and his forces are committing. And it would send the wrong signal to America's friends and allies, the Syrian opposition, the Assad regime, Iran, and the world – all of whom are watching closely what actions America will take.”

Both McCain and Graham are senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

SEE ALSO: COLIN POWELL: Syria Is An 'Internal Struggle' That Is Beyond US Capabilities

Join the conversation about this story »

On Saturday President Obama said that a large-scale chemical weapons attack "presents a serious danger to our national security."

This is a key notion in the debate about whether the U.S. should again choose to meddle in the Middle East.

The president gave three reasons:

1)"It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons."

Earlier this week Ian Bremmer told Business Insider the U.S. "has to respond given international norms against the use of chemical weapons" because the "costs of not responding at this point are too high."

The international norm argument underlies Obama's "question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?"

2)"It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq."

The U.S. stated, in a law signed by Obama in July 2012, that the strategic environment in the Middle East poses "great challenges to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region, particularly our most important ally in the region."

And several of America's other allies in the region are calling for U.S. intervention aimed at toppling Assad so that the devastating 29-month conflict ends.

"Obama never needed to go searching for a coalition of the willing for Syria; one ... has been knocking, in fact, at the door of the Oval Office for quite some time,"Interpreter Magazine Editor-in-Chief Michael D. Weisswrote in Foreign Policy. "Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, all see Syria as a grave short-term threat to their national security."

3)"It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm."

This reason involves the fear that Assad would transfer chemical weapons to Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based terrorist group and Iranian proxy that has more than 60,000 rockets pointed at Israel.

Furthermore, Michael Gordon of The New York Times reported that effective strikes "may also send a signal to Iran that the White House is prepared to back up its words, no small consideration for an administration that has proclaimed that the use of military force remains an option if the leadership in Iran insists on fielding a nuclear weapon."

In Obama's words: "If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules?"

So, unlike the invasion of Iraq, it appears that the Assad's regime's perceived large-scale use of chemical weapons — and a response to such an action — actually involves legitimate national security interests.

SEE ALSO: Here's How Much America REALLY Spends On Israel's Defense

Join the conversation about this story »

Following the President's speech in the White House Rose Garden Saturday, where he announced he would defer to congressional debate before striking the Assad regime, members of the Syrian government wasted no time in hailing the move as a victory.

"Obama backed off of his decision. He must admit the victory of Syria," Sheikh Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun, the Grand Mufti of Syria (the highest religious law official), told YNetNews, adding that Syria was winning "thanks to its leader, its people and its army, and this proved that the issue is not one of ethnic groups, but of homeland, which does not to yield to anyone except Allah."

In his speech, Obama said he was "ready to act," and challenged Congress to follow his lead. He maintained that he does not need to seek congressional approval to strike, citing the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons that killed approximately 1,400 of its own people.

"We lead with the belief that right makes might. Not the other way around," Obama said. "Now's the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments."

While many in Congress commended the president for allowing the issue to be debated, the Syrian Deputy Prime Minister told YNetNews  it was "the Syrian army's readiness [that] warded off U.S. aggression against Syria."

Although it's possible that Congress could be pulled back early, it's more likely that military action against Syria will come up for a vote the week of September 9th.

Join the conversation about this story »

Just out. Here's a draft of the legislation authorizing a strike in Syria that The White House wants Congress to pass.

AUMF Resolution Text by nielslesniewski

Join the conversation about this story »

After President Obama delivered a speech in the Rose Garden where he said the United States "should" strike Syria following a deadly chemical weapons attack, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) took to Twitter to dispute that claim with comments from those who would likely carry out that order.

"I've been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces,"Amash tweeted. "The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria."

Now that Obama has deferred to congressional debate, a vote on striking Syria would likely come up on the week of Sep. 9. The President probably has the support of the Senate, but the vote could have some trouble in the House, as Josh Barro points out.

Since Amash's initial tweet, he's been retweeting comments that have been sent in from military members and veterans. Many of my own military sources have expressed reservations with action in Syria, especially following service in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Here's a sampling:

@repjustinamash 13 year USAF vet here...thanks for actually appreciating our constitution! Vote no to actions in Syria! #constitution

— Mr. King (@derekking1980) August 31, 2013

@repjustinamash Former Army Ranger. 2 tours in Iraq. 1 tour in Afghanistan. Please vote no on military action in Syria.

— George (@jorge5863) August 31, 2013

@repjustinamash Army Veteran here. Paratrooper. 20 years. 2X in Iraq. Vote "no". Please sir. No more nation building chicanery.

— Liberty_'66er (@Liberty_Radio66) August 31, 2013

@repjustinamash former Marine (not in your district) vote no please and thank you.

— CJ Denbo (@elDenbo) August 31, 2013

@repjustinamash Navy vet here. 9 years. I know you will vote no. Thank you!

— Matt Drennan (@DrennanMatt) August 31, 2013

Are you a military veteran? Send me an email with your thoughts on possible military action in Syria (anonymity protected if preferred) — pszoldra@businessinsider.com

Join the conversation about this story »

Over the course of the 29-month Syrian conflict, Russia has provided the regime of Bashar al-Assad with supplies including guns, grenades, tank parts, fighter jets, advanced anti-ship cruise missiles, long-range air defense missiles, military officers as advisors, diplomatic cover, and lots of cash.

So why does the Kremlin back Assad so staunchly? 

There are three primary reasons, as illustrated by this report from Krishnadev Calamur of NPR. 

1) Strategic: Syria's port of Tartus hosts the only remaining international military base outside of the former Soviet Union.

2) Financial: As of June 2012, Russia’s economic interests in Syria total approximately $20 billion, about $5 billion of which are weapons sales. 

3) Philosophical: Andranik Migranyan, director of the New York-based Institute for Democracy and Cooperation, a nongovernmental organization funded by private Russian donors that is considered close to the leadership in Moscow, told NPR's Robert Siegel: "Russia's position is very easy to understand."

"First, Russia is against any regime change from outside of Syria or any other country because according to Russia, any attempt to change the regimes, they are ended up in a chaos and results are quite opposite what were the intentions," Migranyan said. "This was proved in Iraq after the invasions of Americans over there. This was proved in Libya. This was proved in Egypt. And Russia is against principally this regime changes."

SEE ALSO: RUSSIA TO WEST: We Told You Not To Overthrow Qaddafi!

Join the conversation about this story »

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Congress has resolved almost nothing of consequence since 2010, failing to complete what were once basic responsibilities for roads, schools, farms and the U.S. mail.

Asking the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Democratic-led Senate to agree on militaryaction - already a controversial issue both within and between the parties - injects a new dose of uncertainty into Washington's reaction to the Syria crisis.

Because Congress will not even begin floor debate until September 9 at the earliest, a question mark will hang over Washington's Syria policy for weeks, punctuated by emotional and probably bitter debate.

That became evident on Saturday immediately after President Barack Obama's surprise announcement that he would seek authorization for limited military strikes inSyria from members of Congress, many of whom, he has complained, reflexively oppose anything he proposes.

No one knowledgeable about Congress was willing to predict with any confidence how it would deal with a resolution to permit strikes inSyria.

The uncertainty is compounded by Obama's often strained and distant relationship with Congress.

A House Democratic aide, on condition of anonymity, said "the vote will depend on the Republicans" because Democrats "will be split down the middle."

Asked how the votes might go in the House and Senate, Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee said he thought it could be "problematic."

PUBLIC OPINION FACTOR

Some members "may not understand what's happening"inSyria, he told CNN, and "the American people today are not supportive of this. ... I do not think the country is there."

Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said: "The decision to get Congress on board when hasn't had a huge amount of success working with Congress strikes me as a gamble.

"The president and secretary of state have tried to signal resolve, but the question becomes - what happens when they don't get the support that they want and what does that mean about the administration's ability to lead the country?"

The Syria issue is highly complex politically, causing divisions both within and between the parties, particularly at the extremes.

Some traditionally liberal Democrats, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus, have been skeptical of intervention, with several dozen Democrats signing a letter on Thursday worrying about getting into an "unwise war."

Some of the most conservative Republicans, such as Michigan Representative Justin Amash, have also expressed skepticism.

Supporters of intervention, including Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, stopped short of endorsing an authorization, saying in a joint statement that they worried that Obama's limited plan for military strikes might not go far enough to satisfy them.

The authorization request, narrowly worded as a response to the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, came from the White House late on Saturday in the form of a resolution which will require approval of both houses of Congress.

RESOLUTION COULD GET SLOWED DOWN

Attempts to amend the resolution or to use procedural means to slow it down are not unlikely, and Obama would need considerable Republican help to get it passed.

"Ironically, Obama may be saved by congressional Republicans," said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "They tend to be more hawkish on foreign policy. I could see a large number of Democrats voting against it because they are more skeptical of foreign involvements."

Underscoring the division was immediate discord over the timing of Congressional deliberations on Syria, particularly the decision by the House leadership to wait until the end of the summer recess on September 9 to get going, instead of returning to Washington on Tuesday or sooner.

While the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said late on Saturday it would begin hearings next week beforeCongress officially returns, no similar plan had been announced by the House.

"Congress should return to Washington immediately and begin to debate this issues," said Senator Marco Rubioof Florida, considered a likely Republican presidential contender in 2016.

The president has the authority under the Constitution to call Congress back in session "on extraordinary occasions," but so can the congressional leadership. Neither so far has taken that action.

Senior administration officials said Obama left it up to congressional leaders to decide whether to bring members back early because the administration wants to do classified briefings and make the case to Congressin the week ahead, and there were logistical issues with the Labor Day holiday on Monday and religious holidays in the middle of the week.

Though many members had urged Obama to consult with Congress, a few were critical of the decision.

"President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents," said Republican Representative Peter King of New York, a member of the House Intelligence committee, who backs a military response inSyria. "The president does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria."

Even some Democrats who backed Obama said they would have preferred that he acted without Congress.

"I support the president's decision," said Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. "But as far as I'm concerned, we should strike inSyria today. The use of chemical weapons was inhumane, and those responsible should be forced to suffer the consequences."

(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton and Paul Eckert; Editing by Fred Barbash and Mohammad Zargham)

Join the conversation about this story »

Syria state-run daily says Obama decision to seek congressional approval start of US 'retreat'

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — A Syrian state-run newspaper on Sunday called President Barack Obama's decision to seek congressional approval before taking military action against Syria "the start of the historic American retreat."

The gloating tone in the front-page article in the Al-Thawra daily followed Obama's unexpected announcement on Saturday that he would ask Congress to support a strike punishing the President Bashar Assad's regime for the alleged use of chemical weapons. The decision marked a stark turnabout for the White House, which had appeared on the verge of ordering U.S. forces to launch a missile attack against Syria.

"Whether the Congress lights the red or green light for an aggression, and whether the prospects of war have been enhanced or faded, President Obama has announced yesterday, by prevaricating or hinting, the start of the historic American retreat," Al-Thawra said.

The paper, which as a government outlet reflects regime thinking, also claimed that Obama's reluctance to take military action stems from his "sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies." The daily said the American leader worries about limited intervention turning into "an open war has pushed him to seek Congress' consent."

The U.S. Navy moved warships over the past week into the eastern Mediterranean as the Obama administration considered its options. With everything in place, Obama said Saturday that he had decided the U.S. should take military action and that he believes that he has the authority as commander-in-chief to "carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization."

But he added that he believes the U.S. "will be stronger" if he takes his case to Congress for its nod of approval before taking action.

Congress is scheduled to return from a summer break on Sept. 9, and in anticipation of the coming debate, Obama challenged lawmakers to consider "what message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price."

The White House has sent Congress a draft of a resolution seeking approval for a military response to "deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade" the Assad regime's ability to use chemical weapons going forward. The Senate will hold hearings next week so a vote can take place after Congress gets back to work.

The president's strategy carries enormous risks to his and the nation's credibility, which the administration has argued forcefully is on the line in Syria. Obama long ago said the use of chemical weapons was a "red line" that Assad would not be allowed to cross with impunity.

Britain's prime minister, David Cameron, charted a similar course last week by asking the House of Commons to support military action against Syria, only to suffer a stinging defeat.

With U.S. strikes no longer looming, the U.N. probe into the attack has at least a week and a half to analyze samples it took during on-site investigations before the specter of military action comes yet again to the fore.

The head of the U.N. team, Swedish professor Ake Sellstrom, is to brief U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon later Sunday. The group of experts collected biological and environmental samples during their visits to the rebel-held Damascus suburbs that were hit in the Aug. 21 attack.

The inspectors left Syria on Saturday and arrived in The Hague, Netherlands. The samples they collected in Syria are to be repackaged and sent to laboratories around Europe to check them for traces of poison gas. The U.N. says there is no specific timeline for when their analysis will be completed.

There are widely varying death tolls from the suspected toxic gas attack. The aid group Doctors Without Borders says at least 355 people were killed, while the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring groups says it has identified 502 victims by name. A U.S. intelligence assessment says the attack killed 1,429 civilians, including more than 400 children.

In Cairo, Arab League foreign ministers were to hold an emergency session Sunday evening to discuss Syria. Last week, the 22-nation bloc condemned the Aug. 21 attack outside Damascus but said it does not support military action without U.N. consent.

___

Lucas reported from Beirut.

Join the conversation about this story »

Secretary of State John Kerry says the U.S. now has evidence of sarin gas use by the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and does not think "that Congress will vote no" in regards to a limited strike in response.

"In the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States that have now been tested from first responders in east Damascus and hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of Sarin," Kerry told NBC's "Meet The Press."

He added that even if Congress votes against an attack, the president is still ready to proceed with the plan.

Sarin is a nerve toxin so deadly that just one drop can kill a grown man. The fatality typically comes from cardiac arrest or suffocation, as overstimulated muscles around the heart and lungs eventually seize and stop working altogether.

A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the attack on Aug. 21 in the Damascus suburb of East Ghouta.

Only a few people in history have dared to use sarin gas.

"Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein have used these weapons in time of war," Kerry said. "This is of great consequence to Israel, to Jordan, to Turkey, to the region, and to all of us who care about enforcing the international norm with respect to chemical weapons."

A limited U.S. strike appeared imminent until Saturday, when Obama said he would first seek Congressional approval. The debate will start on Sept. 9.

"Use of chemical weapons is unacceptable," Kerry told NBC. "And we cannot stand by and allow that to happen and create an impunity for its use.  That would be the end of the chemical weapons norm. ... Now why go to Congress?  Because the United States of America is stronger when the Congress of the United States representing the people and the President of the United States are acting together.  And the president wants that strength represented in this initiative."

The president's decision has been met with criticism from the Syrian opposition and derision from Syrian state media.

"We can't understand how you can promise to help those who are being slaughtered every day in the hundreds, giving them false hope, then change your mind and say let's wait and see," the Syrian National Coalition, a key group of Syrian dissidents, said in a statement.

"Whether the Congress lights the red or green light for an aggression, and whether the prospects of war have been enhanced or faded, President Obama has announced yesterday, by prevaricating or hinting, the start of the historic American retreat," Syrian state newspaper Al-Thawra wrote.

Nevertheless, it appears that the White House is certain that Assad committed the atrocity and will act accordingly.

"We know that the regime ordered this attack, we know they prepared for it," Kerry told CNN's "State of the Union.""We know where the rockets came from. We know where they landed. We know the damage that was done afterwards. ... we know that the regime tried to cover up afterwards, so the case is really an overwhelming case."

SEE ALSO: This Is What Happens To Someone Hit By The Nerve Toxin Allegedly Used By Assad

Join the conversation about this story »

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that it would be a "mistake" to get involved militarily in Syria, referencing a young John Kerry to make his point.

"I wish he remembered more of how awful war is," Paul said on "Meet the Press" of the now-Secretary of State Kerry.

Paul even used a common Kerry refrain — one he used frequently during his 2004 presidential run — to suggest that he wouldn't vote to approve a Congressional resolution for military action.

"How can you ask a man to be the first one to die for a mistake?"Paul said, twisting a quote Kerry gave before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 on the Vietnam War, when he was the face of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

Back then, in a preview of the role he would come to play in the Senate, Kerry challenged the committee and said, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

Paul has become the face of libertarian, anti-interventionist Republicans in Congress this year, beginning with his high-profile filibuster of John Brennan's nomination over the Obama administration's policy on drone strikes.

For his part, Kerry appeared on "Meet the Press" just before Paul, where he made the case for military action. He said that the U.S. has evidence that the Bashar al-Assad regime has used sarin gas, comparing Assad to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.

"Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein have used these weapons in time of war," Kerry said. "This is of great consequence to Israel, to Jordan, to Turkey, to the region, and to all of us who care about enforcing the international norm with respect to chemical weapons."

Join the conversation about this story »

September is a dangerous month. Five years ago this month, Lehman Brothers went belly-up. Twelve months earlier there was the run on Northern Rock. Black Wednesday in September 1992 saw Britain's departure from the exchange rate mechanism; the pound left the gold standard in September 1931.

The signs are that September 2013 will also be an interesting month. That's interesting as in scary. There are five potential flashpoints: Syria, the G20 summit, emerging markets, the Federal Reserve meeting to discuss scaling down the US stimulus, and the German election. Any one of them has the potential to damage the global economy.

Let's start with Syria. Military action by the west against the Assad regime could affect growth in two ways: directly, through a higher oil prices and indirectly, by depressing business and consumer confidence.

On the face of it, there is no real reason why the air strikes favoured by Barack Obama should have led to the price of crude rocketing. Syria is not an oil producer and there would only be an impact on oil supplies if Iran tried to close the Strait of Hormuz. This seems unlikely.

But commodity markets quite often ignore economic fundamentals. There is already a Syria premium built into the price of Brent crude, which was changing hands at just under $120 a barrel in London last week. Any hint of the conflict spreading beyond Syria will see the cost of oil rise further, and while talk of $150 a barrel seems overly pessimistic there have been plenty of examples of rumour, fear and speculation combining to ramp up prices. Capital Economics estimates that $150 crude would knock a percentage point off global growth, turning a lacklustre performance into something close to stagnation.

The impact on sentiment is impossible to gauge. There were no long-lasting effects on confidence from the much more extensive military action in Iraq a decade ago, but that was before the Great Recession of the past five years. Businesses looking for a fresh excuse to keep investment plans on hold may find that Syria provides it.

That is more likely to be the case if the G20 summit in St Petersburg ends in acrimony. The conclave of developed and developing countries was supposed to usher in a new epoch of more co-operative global governance, and so it did – for the first 12 months after the G20's inaugural meeting in Washington in 2008.

Since then it has been downhill all the way. G20 countries have failed to agree a joint line on economic stimulus versus austerity, and in the end member countries have simply done their own thing.

But this time the summit could get really nasty if Vladimir Putin cuts up rough over US policy towards Syria, and gets backing from China. On past form, the chances of a big diplomatic bust-up are high, in which case expect markets to respond in their time-honoured fashion by seeking out safe havens in gold, the Swiss franc and the US dollar.

This would exacerbate the problems of the more vulnerable emerging market economies, which have already seen sharp falls in their currencies against the dollar. India, which saw the rupee sink to a record low last week, and Indonesia, which raised interest rates to defend the rupiah, are the most exposed. Both India and Indonesia have deep-seated structural problems and these have been exposed by the Fed's announcement that it was contemplating scaling back – or tapering – its asset purchases under the quantitative easing programme. Money has flowed out of emerging markets and back into the US as a result, prompting fears of a rerun of the Asian currency crisis of 1997.

These fears are almost certainly overblown. The trouble in the late 1990s was caused by countries with fixed exchange regimes trying to cope with vast hot money flows, which came flooding in and then flooded out again. The worst-affected nations had high levels of foreign currency debt and insufficient reserves with which to fight the speculators. None of that holds true today. There has been no repeat of the big capital flows seen in the 1990s, while floating exchange rate regimes and substantial reserves mean emerging market economies are far better placed to defend themselves.

Which is just as well, since collectively the emerging markets are far important to the health of the global economy than they were in 1997. As Nick Parsons of National Australia Bank notes, 30 years ago the advanced world made up 70% of global GDP with emerging markets the other 30%. Today the split is 50-50. As a result, he says, the Fed needs to be careful at its meeting on 18 September.

"US policymakers must increasingly be aware of their global responsibilities. The world economy, more than at any point in history, depends crucially on the success of the emerging market bloc and its fast-growing, very populous nations. In 1998 the world economy withstood the Asia crisis. An emerging market crisis now – with policy stimulus in the developed world largely exhausted – would be a global, not merely a local concern."

Of all September's potential pitfalls, policy error by the Fed is the one troubling markets the most. A year ago that would not have been the case, when pundits would have put the German election on 22 September at the top of their list of concerns. That is no longer the case because fears of a breakup of the euro have faded and Europe has emerged from an 18-month double-dip recession. But the eurozone's economic recovery is fragile and the need for a third bailout for Greece shows that the debt crisis is far from over. A tougher approach to debtor countries by the new government in Berlin would not be helpful.

Action by the Fed is likely to be modest. The US central bank is not proposing to stop stimulating the economy, merely to scale back the amount of support it provides. The likeliest outcome is that asset purchases will initially be tapered from $85bn a month to $75bn (£55bn to £48bn), the equivalent of a doctor slightly reducing the dosage of a powerful drug in the hope that eventually the patient can be taken off medication altogether.

Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed, has adopted a reassuring bedside manner in his dealings with the stimulus junkies of Wall Street. He has talked through exactly what he plans to do and when he plans to do it. He has made it clear that he doesn't expect markets to stand on their own feet overnight. Even so, there is still no certainty about the way things will pan out. Central banks have been using large doses of experimental drugs, and nobody knows for sure whether there will be dangerous side-effects. In a month's time we should have some sort of inkling of just how powerful those side-effects might prove to be.

This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk

Join the conversation about this story »