What will the congress say and what will it do? If past is prologue it's not hard to guess
by digby
The Fix lines out the congressional battle lines (at the moment) on a potential Syrian military intervention. This sounds about right to me:
The “do it now, already” caucus:
This group includes Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
In a strongly-worded statement, Nelson said Saturday that “I support the president’s decision. But as far as I’m concerned, we should strike in Syria today. The use of chemical weapons was inhumane, and those responsible should be forced to suffer the consequences.”
The “want bigger military action” caucus:
This group is much smaller and is led by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who said Saturday that they agree with Obama that a military response is necessary and that Congress should act as soon as possible.
But then they went a step further: “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.”[...]
The “happy to debate the issue, reserving judgment” caucus:
This is the largest caucus. Most lawmakers in this group, including Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.) and Rep. Trey Radel (R-Fla.), agree that the Syrian government’s action are deplorable, but that they will withhold judgment until the debate begins in earnest.
“I will review the evidence and arguments with great care before deciding how I will vote on this difficult and important issue,” Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said Saturday.[...]
The skeptical caucus:
A fair number of Republicans and Democrats in both chambers sit with this group.
Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.) expressed a view Saturday that sums up the feelings of many congressional Democrats. “After over a decade of war in the Middle East, there needs to be compelling evidence that there is an imminent threat to the security of the American people or our allies before any military action is taken,” he said. “I do not believe that this situation meets that threshold.”
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) pointedly said Saturday that “The United States should only engage militarily when it is pursuing a clear and attainable national security goal. Military action taken simply to send a message or save face does not meet that standard.”[...]
The anti-military action caucus:
This group stitches together an unlikely alliance of tea party conservatives and veteran liberal doves, many of whom still remember the consequences of the Iraq war debate.
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) is a leading GOP “no” vote, who has spent much of the weekend sharing his views on Twitter.
In an interview Sunday on PostTV’s “In Play,” Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) said that “I do have a bias against” supporting military action. “If I had to vote today, I would vote no. But I also expect to learn from the debate.”[...]
The doves in that piece were represented by Charlie Rangel proposing to reinstate the draft.
The two biggest factions at the moment are "happy to debate the issue" and "skeptics." I'm going to guess that the Democrats in both of those categories will pretty easily be persuaded to authorize strikes once they've been able to pretend that they are watering down the president's proposal. (I'm fairly sure that was worked out in advance.) I would love to think I'm wrong about this but recent experience shows that the president's party almost always backs the president on these things and depending on the political climate, a fairly substantial faction of the opposition balks. Both parties are extremely hypocritical in these matters.
Recall the GOP Iraq war hawks who has just a few years before gave thundering speeches on the floor of the congress that could have been given by Dennis Kucinich. The Democrats pounded their chests in favor. And just four years later the argument was completely reversed with Iraq. It's true that there were major differences in the operations at issue, but the rhetoric was remarkably the same: the war hawks always make the emotional case for war by proclaiming their identification with the innocents and insisting that the US has the responsibility to step in and save them. The doves question the US right and responsibility to lead the way with violence and an uncertain outcome. And both sides are more than willing to make the case that US "credibility" and "moral authority" is on the line in one situation but not the other while the necessity (and efficacy) of "signal sending" becomes paramount depending on your side of the issue. Meanwhile the public hears exactly the same reasoning for and against, regardless.
You can't blame them for not knowing or caring who the various players are. After all, we always drop the bombs no matter what. With the parties speaking out of both sides of their mouths, depending on the politics, the average citizen is cynical and skeptical. After Gulf War I and Kosovo, they figured we'd cruise to an easy, (American) casualty-free victory in Afghanistan and Iraq and all would be well in short shrift. After Afghanistan and Iraq (plus, I would argue, Libya) not so much. All of this has happened in the last 20 years, a blink of an eye in historical terms.
I think people can be forgiven for failing to see the nuances in these various arguments --- from afar it just looks like a debate that always ends up the same way: bombs explode in some far off land, and America foots the bill, if not always in blood, always in treasure. And the world remains a mess.
Perhaps it's a good time to back up and question this whole notion of American bombing campaigns to save the children and ask ourselves if maybe it's not working. Of the two big victories, only Kosovo has held up, and perhaps we should acknowledge that it might be because it took place in Europe rather than the middle east, which is infinitely less complicated and volatile. .