Note: Below we present the view on the proposed attack by the US on Syrian targets as summed up by a British paper—The Telegraph—after the UK bowed out of the equation.
Britain’s withdrawal from military strikes against Syria is seen in the United States as a major setback undermining President Barack Obama’s efforts to build an alliance against the Assad regime.
Jon Swaine in New York and Foreign Staff / 30 Aug 2013
The US president is left isolated on the international stage as he considers unilateral miliatry action without United Nations support or America’s most important military ally, Britain.
President Obama’s predecessors have weighed in to offer their views on the pending military action. George W Bush, who of course dragged America into two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has told Fox News that Mr Obama has a “tough choice to make”, but:
If he decides to use our military, he’ll have the greatest military ever backing him up.
He also says he is “not a fan” of Assad. “He’s an ally of Iran, he’s made mischief“, he adds.
Jimmy Carter, the former Democrat president, said unilateral action would be a mistake.
A punitive military response without a UN Security Council mandate or broad support from NATO and the Arab League would be illegal under international law and unlikely to alter the course of the war…
All should seek to leverage the consensus among the entire international community, including Russia and Iran, condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and bringing under UN oversight the country’s stockpile of such weapons.
It will only harden existing positions and postpone a sorely needed political process to put an end to the catastrophic violence.
Chuck Hagel, the US Secretary of Defence, said America would respect the British decision and press on with building an alliance against the Assad regime.
Every nation has a responsibility to make their own decisions, and we respect that of any nation
The British have been very strong in condemning the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, and that vote in the Parliament doesn’t change that. That is a very significant position for any nation to take publicly. We’ll continue to work with Britain and consult with Britain as we are with all our allies.
It is the goal of President Obama and our government to whatever decision is taken that it be an international collaboration and effort. Our approach is to continue to find an international coalition that will act together.
Caitlin Hayden, National Security Council spokesman, said Washington will continue to consult with Britain, but “President Obama’s decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.”
[Obama] believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable.
A senior US official told CNN that America would consider going it alone.
We care what they think. We value the process. But we’re going to make the decision we need to make.
Senator John McCain, the senior Republican, said the vote by British MPs rejecting military action, despite the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, would undermine President Obama.
I think it’s put [Mr Obama] into a very difficult and contradictory position, because this wasn’t the first time that Bashar al-Assad crossed the red line – there are some allegations there were as many as 30 times, absolutely as many as 10. And there’s no doubt this was chemical weapons – come on. Does anybody seriously doubt it was chemical weapons when there a bodies of children stacked up? So that’s just a facade.
There are a lot of legacies with the lack of American leadership – there is no policy, there is no strategy and there is no endgame here. And until we get one you’re going to see this kind of confusion. And to announce that any action we take would not be aimed at regime change, to me, is incomprehensible.
General Michael Hayden, a former director of the National Security Agency, told CNN that after losing his key ally Mr Obama would have no choice but to go it alone.
I think the United States would act unilaterally because President Obama made this commitment for the US and frankly for himself about a year ago, and I just cant conceive that he would back down from a very serious course of action, in which these actions by Assad have serious consequences.
It would be good politically to have other nations join us, but in terms of raw military power, the United States has sufficient power to do this.
Bill Richardson, the Democratic former US energy secretary and former governor of New Mexico, said the US president “has to be very careful” following Mr Cameron’s defeat in the Commons.
The president has to get a broad international coalition, otherwise he hands Assad a propaganda victory. Assad can say very few countries support the United States with their military strikes. At the UN, too, even though the Russians probably would veto a chapter 7 all-means-necessary military resolution, we could still try to get a ban on arms shipments that bring in some of the chemical weapons. We could try to send Assad to the international court.
Aides to John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, said after Mr Cameron’s defeat that Mr Obama must now answer questions on his plans for action in Syria.
It is clear that further dialogue and consultation with Congress, as well as communication with the American public, will be needed – said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Mr Boehner.
The British vote could give the Democrat US president problems in the Republican controlled Congress as American politicians demand their say too.
Nearly 80 per cent of Americans believe that Obama should get congressional approval before using force in Syria, according to a new poll conducted by NBC news. Half think that the US should not intervene in the wake of the attacks.
Representative Howard (Buck) McKeon, Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Mr Obama needed to convince Congress and a “war weary” country.
If he doesn’t, I think he could have a real problem with the Congress and the American public. He’s got a big sell. It’s a very tough situation with no good options.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat leader in the Congress, said she supported miltary action but that Mr Obama needed to take America with him.
There needs to be more consultation with all Members of Congress and additional transparency into the decision making process and timing, and that the case needs to be made to the American people.
It is clear that the American people are weary of war. However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security. We must be clear that the United States rejects the use of chemical weapons by Assad or any other regime. What Assad has done is outside the realm of basic human rights.
The New York Daily News is shocked by the Commons vote. Britain is now in the German camp and the French, once decried as “surrender monkeys” over Iraq are stepping up to the plate.
President Obama’s attempts to form a coalition of nations willing to attack Syria appear to be splintering.
The biggest blow was dealt by the normally reliable Brits, whose Parliament stunned Obama on Thursday by voting down Prime Minister David Cameron’s proposal to join the attack on Bashar Assad’s government.
With Germany already saying no, the President was left with France, whose president, Francois Hollande, said its troops “have been put in a position to respond.”
The British vote against action in Syria doesn’t bind Obama per se, but it will affect the perceived legitimacy of whatever is done – said PJ Crowley, a former aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department.
This is an enormous setback for the administration … the British have been allies of ours for so long, in so many of our military operations, will not be part of it – Robin Wright, a fellow of the Woodrow Wilson Centre.
Howver, many US senators said their belief that intervention in Syria had not been shaken by the withdrawal of British support.
A decisive and consequential US response is justified – saidRobert Menendez, a Democrat of New Jersey and the chairman of the Senate committee on foreign relations.
I would support surgical, proportional military strikes, given the strong evidence of the Assad regime’s continued use of chemical warfare – said Bob Corker, a Republican of Tennessee and the ranking Republican on the committee on foreign relations.
