Skip to main content

Senator Jack Reed (D. RI) has been the voice of caution over what to do regarding Syria:

SCHIEFFER: This morning, the Syrian government said it would allow U.N. inspectors into the country. President Obama, of course, has said the use of chemical weapons would be a red line. So where does that leave the United States? To talk about it, we turn first to a senior Democrat on the Senate armed services committee, Jack Reed of Rhodes Island. Well, as I understand it this morning, they're going to let the inspectors in. Does that make any difference?

REED: It will help because one of the first things that we have to do is verify, although there is increasing evidence that the Assad regime conducted a horrific attack on its own people, but we have to verify that it was directed by the Assad regime. Because that will allow us to build an international coalition, which is absolutely necessary to take any further steps in Syria. And also, it will help defuse some of the countries like Iran and Russia, who are trying to pawn this off on the rebels, the opposition. So it's critical. And then, after that, of course, the president has to consider what response he might take.

SCHIEFFER: Well, what do think he ought to do, Senator?

REED: Well, first of all, I think he has to be careful about defining what is our objective. And in this situation, I believe our objective is to make it prohibitive for any country to use chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction. So a military option that would be limited to that point is something that he should be thinking about very carefully. But I think we can't let ourselves get into a situation where this becomes a springboard for a general military operation in Syria to try to change the dynamic. That dynamic is going to be long-term, very difficult, and ultimately established and settled by the Syrians, not by foreign powers.  - Face The Nation, 8/25/13

Reed has long been a voice of caution on how to handle Syria and has been pretty vocal about it:

"This has to be an international operation, it can't be a unilateral American approach," Reed said on CBS television's Face the Nation show. "It has to have support internationally, not just politically, but militarily," he said, adding that Washington could not get into a "general military operation in Syria." - Reuters, 8/25/13
Here's a little more background info:

Moving a step closer to possible American military action in Syria, a senior Obama administration official said Sunday that there was “very little doubt” that President Bashar al-Assad’s military forces had used chemical weapons against civilians last week and that a Syrian promise to allow United Nations inspectors access to the site was “too late to be credible.”

The official, in a written statement, said that “based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts and other facts gathered by open sources, the U.S. intelligence community, and international partners, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident.”

The statement, released Sunday morning on the condition that the official not be named, reflected a tougher tone after President Obama’s meeting at the White House on Saturday with his national security team, during which advisers discussed options for military action.

While administration officials emphasized that Mr. Obama had not decided to take action, they said he was determined not to be drawn into a protracted debate over gaining access for the United Nations investigators, because of doubts that they could now produce credible findings.

Officials say that a list of possible targets for a military strike has been circulating in the White House since late last week. The list, which the Pentagon originally prepared months ago for Mr. Obama, includes both chemical-weapons sites and broader military and government targets, depending on the type of action the president orders. If strikes are carried out, the targets would probably be hit by cruise missiles fired from Navy ships.

The president, who warned a year ago that the use of chemical weapons by Syrian government forces would be a “red line,” has faced criticism from Congressional Republicans and others for failing to respond more forcefully to evidence of earlier, smaller-scale chemical attacks. Mr. Obama, who inherited two costly wars — in Iraq and Afghanistan — has been extremely reluctant to commit American military forces, even in the form of missile strikes, to another tangled conflict in the Middle East.

But on Sunday, the White House seemed to take a harder line, dismissing the Syrian promise of possible access by United Nations inspectors. - New York Times, 8/25/13

Reed is not alone in calling on the Obama Administration to practice extreme caution before acting:

U.S. lawmakers from both political parties urged a limited American military response, such as cruise missile strikes, but a senior Democrat, Senator Jack Reed, cautioned that any move by Washington should not be unilateral.

Senator Bob Corker, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said he had discussed the issue with the administration in the past week and believed Obama would ask Congress for authorization for intervention once Congress returns from its recess on September9.

"I think we will respond in a surgical way and I hope the president as soon as we get back to Washington will ask for authorization from Congress to do something in a very surgical and proportional way," he told Fox News Sunday.

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if the reports are true that the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says. - Chicago Tribune. 8/25/13

Tehre's a good reason for Reed and Corker to call on Obama to be careful about his next move:

Syria’s information minister said any U.S. military action would “create a ball of fire that will inflame the Middle East”.

He said Damascus had evidence that chemical weapons were used by rebels fighting to topple Assad, not by his government. That argument is given credence by Assad’s ally Russia, but dismissed by Western countries that believe the rebels have no access to poison gas or the big weapons needed to deliver it.

Western leaders have been phoning each other in recent days to discuss a possible coordinated international response.

The White House said Obama and French President Francois Hollande “discussed possible responses by the international community and agreed to continue to consult closely.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed there was little doubt the attack was carried out by the Syrian government and that “such an attack demanded a firm response from the international community,” Cameron’s office said.

“We cannot in the 21st century allow the idea that chemical weapons can be used with impunity,” said British Foreign Secretary William Hague. “We believe it’s very important that there is a strong response and that dictators ... know that the use of chemical weapons is to cross a line and that the world will respond when that line is crossed.”

Hollande’s office said: “France is determined that this act does not go unpunished.” - Toronto Sun, 8/25/13

Syrian officials have stated that any action form the U.S. has sever consequences:

In an interview with The Associated Press in Damascus, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad said airstrikes or other action against Syria would also trigger "chaos" and threaten worldwide peace and security.

He spoke Monday as support for an international response was mounting if it is confirmed that President Bashar Assad's troops were responsible for the Aug. 21 attack, which activists say killed hundreds.

The Obama administration is now talking behind the scenes as if there is almost no doubt about Assad's use of chemical weapons, CBS News senior White House correspondent Major Garrett reported on "CBS This Morning."

President Obama is moving toward a military strike against Syria. Any final decisions haven't been made, but senior administration officials talk of Syria now as a place where the U.S. and its allies must exact a military price for heavy use of chemical weapons. There is no longer serious debate within the administration if the Assad regime used chemical weapons last week.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday condemned the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria, calling it a "moral obscenity" that could soon bring a military response during a press conference at the State Department. Kerry appeared to be outlining a justification for possible U.S. military action.

"This is about the large scale, indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world long ago decided must never be used at all, a conviction shared even by countries that agree on little else," Kerry said at the State Department. "There is a clear reason that the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons."

The U.N. weapons inspector team currently in Syria is not going to assign blame for any potential chemical weapons attack -- instead just investigate whether one occurred -- making any chance the Security Council will back international action in the two-year-old civil war even less likely. Russia has long been a firm backer of the Assad regime, and on Sunday warned the U.S. to not turn Syria into another Iraq. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Monday any intervention in Syria without a Security Council resolution would be a grave violation of international law, according to Reuters.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Monday the Obama administration is "considering all different options." - CBS News, 8/26/13

So far no action has been taken but I thank Senator Reed for remaining to be a strong voice of caution.  Please do contact his office to thank him and continue to talk to the administration about thinking first about their decision.  You can also send your questions here:

Originally posted to pdc on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:03 PM PDT.

Also republished by The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (11+ / 0-)

    Funny Stuff at

    by poopdogcomedy on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:03:01 PM PDT

  •  target list: who would grieve at their destruction (0+ / 0-)
    Syrian chemical weapons production facilities have been identified by Western nonproliferation experts at approximately 5 sites, plus one suspected weapons base:
    al-Safira (Scud missile base)
    Hama (Scud missile base)

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:06:02 PM PDT

  •  Jack Reed is correct on all accounts. (6+ / 0-)

    They need to be certain.

    They need to act as part of a multilateral coalition.

    They need to define exactly what it is they aim to accomplish. There is a big difference between punitive strikes aimed at deterring future chemical weapons use, and joining up with the rebels.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:07:51 PM PDT

    •  Agreed. This has a very familiar ring to it. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Klaus, Mr Robert
      Senator Bob Corker, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said he had discussed the issue with the administration in the past week and believed Obama would ask Congress for authorization for intervention once Congress returns from its recess on September9.

      "I think we will respond in a surgical way and I hope the president as soon as we get back to Washington will ask for authorization from Congress to do something in a very surgical and proportional way," he told Fox News Sunday.

      Can we not repeat our past failures just this once?

       photo 8ef99ac6-4030-424e-accd-bf5a2c857bfd_zpsfeae42e8.jpg

      What, sir, would the people of the earth be without woman? They would be scarce, sir, almighty scarce. Mark Twain

      by Gordon20024 on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:32:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chemical weapons (0+ / 0-)

    Depleted uranium and phosphorous come to mind.

    But Kerry says the world has banned chemical weapons.

    This talk of military action in Syria at a time when Obama and Putin are said to be chilly towards each other over LGBT laws in Russia suddenly has awakened my instincts.

    I am beginning to suspect the "chill" is fake.

    Russia has had Syria as it's client for over 40 years. There is a huge Russian naval and military investment there.

    Those WMDs are RUSSIA'S responsibility. Only an international response that has Russia on the right side of this issue will be effective.

    Russia could send troops to Syria to oversee the destruction of the WMDs, accompanied by a UN force. It would be a similar operation to the First Gulf War, except this time the Russians would lead instead of assisting like they did in the First Gulf War.

    Since Russia has already mobilized 160k troops, this is the likely scenario that I see unfolding. Assad will remain, WMDs will be destroyed. The Russians may also help crush the rebellion, aided by Hezbollah and Iran. With France, the US and other UN members on the ground, no one will stop the brutal slaughter. Similar to what happened to the Shias in Iraq in 1991.

    •  Ahhh IRAQ (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Now, suddenly, I understand the recent attacks against Shiites in Iraq. Don't you?

      It's not "sectarian violence" in a vacuum. The Shia government in Iraq has military ties to Iran. They must be helping Hezbollah in Syria.

      Iraq has become a traffic stop for Sunni jihadis on their way to Syria.

      Same with Lebanon.

      Let's see. Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Qatar, Libya, Tunisia, Russia, France, The USA, The UK, the EU, Nato, the UN.

      Yep. Russia is about to experience it's military comeback. Follow that on with 10 years of sanctions and Syria will collapse and the Russians will own it. Until they quit occupation, like the USA did in Iraq.

  •  Let's see the evidence (0+ / 0-)

    Or is this going to be Gulf of Tonkin II.  Shoot first, determine what happened later.

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:49:48 PM PDT

  •  Reed would be a great Veep choice for Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    I know she won't - because he brings you ZERO electorally - but he would be a solid liberal w/all sorts of nat. security credentials (on top of hers) who can be a voice of reason in her white house

  •  No more rushes to war. (0+ / 0-)

    Let the Syrians sort out their own bullshit.  

    The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

    by Beelzebud on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 04:05:25 PM PDT

  •  Well duh. Obama is talking with the UN and allies, (0+ / 0-)

    so Reed is safely behind the curve.

    "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10 UID: 8519

    by Bob Love on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 04:51:00 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site