In September 2013, a resolution (S.J.Res. 21) was placed before the Senate authorizing the President to take limited air strikes against the Assad regime in response to chemical attacks. One prominent senator rose to the floor and stated the following:
Indeed, if, through this limited strike, the President's credibility is not restored because Asad uses chemical weapons again, what then? And new targets aimed at toppling the regime which end up jeopardizing control of these same chemical weapons stashes--allowing them to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda and others intent on using them against the United States or our allies. Where would the cycle of escalation end?
...
So I will be voting against this resolution. A vital national security risk is clearly not at play, there are too many unanswered questions about our long-term strategy in Syria, including the fact that this proposal is utterly detached from a wider strategy to end the civil war there, and on the specific question of deterring the use of chemical weapons, the President's proposal appears to be based actually on a contradiction: either we will strike targets that threaten the stability of the regime--something the President says he does not intend to do--or we will execute a strike so narrow as to be a mere demonstration.
Who said that? This guy.
You can read the entire speech blasting possible limited airstrikes
right here.
Now, I don’t entirely disagree with some of the concerns raised in his speech. There didn’t seem to be a very coherent grand strategy to dealing with the Syrian Civil War. There were possibilities that IS/Daesh, Al Nusra, and others could use such attacks to their advantage. And we had no real end-game strategy.
The issue is what we’re going to hear from “Mr. Nuclear Option” now that his boy runs the place. There certainly is no coherent strategy whatsoever for resolving the Syrian situation. Tillerson says one thing, Haley says another, Trump does something completely different. And if anyone thinks this will deter Assad from slaughtering civilians — which is his grand strategy to exterminate his opposition — I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Yeah, Assad’s got 15 or so less Su-22’s now. But do we really think he can’t simply request additional sorties from his allies sharing his bases, and that they won’t oblige? Not only that, but he could also deliver sarin gas via artillery shell (e.g.,
M687). The only way such an airstrike as last night could be effective is if there was a threat behind it of further concrete action. Airstrikes aren’t going to cut it, unless we undertake a serious operation to destroy nearly the entire operational capacity of the Syrian Air Force. That’s going to ruffle a few feathers in Moscow.
I look forward to Mitch McConnell’s forthcoming identical statement made in response to these very actions being taken by the current President. Not really.