I'm just reading in the Guardian some details of the Senate foreign relations committee vote this evening to send the authorization request to the full Senate. The 10-7 approval was apparently contingent on thy adoption of some amendments proposed by John McCain. Here's the Guardian for details:
But the committee also voted to accept controversial amendments proposed by hawkish Republican senator John McCain that would explicitly make it a policy of the US to seek to "change the momentum of the battlefield" in ways that would force Assad to negotiate his resignation.
"It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favourable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria," said the second of two amendments proposed by McCain and Democrat Chris Coons.
"A comprehensive US strategy in Syria should aim, as part of a co-ordinated international effort, to degrade the capabilities of the Assad regime to use weapons of mass destruction while upgrading the lethal and non-lethal military capabilities of vetted elements of Syrian opposition forces, including the Free Syrian Army," it added.
The language reflects concerted behind-the-scenes lobbying by McCain, who effectively made Republican Senate support dependent on the White House agreeing to toughen its approach to Syria. The hawkish former presidential candidate has argued for months that the US should more actively take sides in the conflict and use its punitive strikes in reaction to alleged chemical weapons use to achieve broader strategic aims.
Now the full senate could vote to strip this language out again next week, but I predict they will not -- I think the measure will go forward to some kind of victory in the senate as an explicit bid for regime change, albeit one where boots-on-the-ground are verboten. This will cause trouble in the House among the convinced anti-interventionists (both D and R); but there's an equally large block right now arguing that "limited strikes" are foolish because they can't possibly accomplish any real objectives (whether punishing the use of gas, or aiding the rebels more generally). That block will be pleased. I dunno if that's enough to get a majority in the House--there's been some interesting speculation that Obama would be satisfied with a senate vote; he could just write off the House as a bunch of irredeemable crazies. But if he does get a majority house vote it will be on the McCainized resolution.
Just sayin...