Obama 'has the right' to strike Syria regardless of Congress vote, says Kerry

Secretary of state says the US has evidence that sarin gas was used in chemical attacks, as the Obama administration seeks to persuade congressional sceptics of military action

Spencer Ackerman in Washington

The Obama administration indicated on Sunday that it would launch military strikes against Syria even if it failed to get the backing of the US Congress, claiming evidence that sarin gas had been used in chemical attacks outside Damascus last month.

Less than a day after the president vowed to put an attack to a congressional vote, secretary of state John Kerry said the administration was determined to act against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, and did not need the backing of Congress to do so.

Kerry, one of the leading advocates of a military assault on dictator Bashar al-Assad, claimed the US had identified the type of nerve agent used in the 21 August attacks on 12 neighborhoods outside Damascus.

In a round of appearances on the Sunday political shows in the US, he said the evidence of sarin came from blood and hair samples from first responders who helped victims of the attacks. Kerry said the evidence had not come from United Nations weapons inspectors, but did not give any further details of the source for the samples, nor where or when they had been tested. He said the case for attacks against the Syrian regime was growing stronger "by the day".

Kerry said the Obama administration's clear preference was to win a vote in Congress that could occur as early as next week, after lawmakers return from their summer recess on 9 September. He said he was confident of a yes vote. "We don't contemplate that the Congress is going to vote no," Kerry told CNN, defending the decision to seek congressional authorisation that has stunned Washington and foreign capitals alike.

The secretary of state stressed that President Obama had the right to take action "no matter what Congress does". He said he could "hear the complaints" about presidential abuse had Obama not gone to Congress, but that its backing would give any military action greater credibility: "We are stronger as a nation when we act together." But he added: "America intends to act."

Syrian opposition figures have reacted with exasperation to what they perceive as Obama's delay in striking against Assad. While the Obama administration insists that the exclusive purpose of any such military attack would be to punish the chemical weapons attack and deter future use, the fractious and diverse opposition hopes the anticipated US strike will finally tip the military balance in their favor, something they have not managed decisively in a two-and-a-half year civil war that has killed nearly 100,000 people.

Samir Nishar of the opposition Syrian National Coalition called Obama a "weak president", according to CNN.

Kerry reacted to the evident Syrian opposition disappointment by suggesting that Obama will not limit US involvement in the foreign civil war to cruise missile strikes tethered to chemical weapons. The administration "may even be able to provide greater support to the opposition", Kerry said. Obama began providing weapons to Syrian rebels after determining earlier this year that Assad had carried out a smaller-scale chemical attack.

Deeper involvement in the Syrian civil war has prompted deep reluctance within the US military to bless even a one-off military strike. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and a multi-tour veteran of Iraq, has voiced such fears for more than two years.

"My worry about this is what's the future, what's the strategy," said retired marine general Anthony Zinni, a former commander of US forces in the Middle East. "How much does this draw us further and further in incrementally?"

Several congressional hawks are asking the same question, but from a different perspective.

John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two of the most interventionist Republicans in the Senate, said they found it difficult to support "isolated military strikes". In a statement this weekend, the two said they wanted the goal of the military campaign to "achieve the president's stated goal of Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict".

Kerry, responding to McCain and Graham, said he was confident the two senators would become convinced that "there will be additional pressure" on Assad.

"A strategy is in place in order to help the opposition and change the dynamics of what is happening in Syria," Kerry told ABC News, while simultaneously denying the US would get sucked into the mire of the civil war.

Ahead of a scheduled classified briefing in Washington for members of Congress, some leading legislators predicted that Obama would win a vote of the kind that his UK counterpart, prime minister David Cameron, unexpectedly lost last week. "At the end of the day, Congress will rise to the occasion," Representative Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, told CNN. "This is a national security issue."

But others were less sure. Senator Rand Paul, a libertarian Republican, put the chances of an authorisation vote in the House of Representatives at 50-50. "I think the Senate will rubber stamp what he wants but the House will be a much closer vote," he told NBC.

McCain said the administration needed to have a more decisive plan to topple the Assad regime. He warned against the possibility of Congress defying the president. "The consequences of a Congress of the United States over-riding a decision of the president of the United States on this magnitude are really very serious," he told Face the Nation on CBS.

---

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/01/obama-strike-syria-congress-kerry