Echoing critics of the Obama administration’s proposal to attack Syria, Sen. Elizabeth Warren recently warned that military intervention comes with “unintended consequences.”
Those remarks of hers are quoted in this Associated Press article reprinted on her website. In the same article (dated August 29), you’ll notice that our other senator, Edward Markey, appears more supportive of intervention. As was previously reported on Blue Mass Group, he endorsed limited action based on “surgical” strikes but he didn’t want to get mired in Syria.
However, in a press release yesterday, Markey’s limited support changed to skepticism as he echoed Warren in warning about “negative consequences that may be beyond our capability to control.” His support for an attack came with conditions: “we need a full debate, we need international backing, and we need detailed, complete evidence presented before deciding whether our country should take action in Syria.”
The debate continues in Congress (if not among the citizenry, which stands widely opposed to strikes), but it doesn’t look like the international backing Markey requires is coming. Not with the United Nations refusing to support a strike, and allies like Britain and Germany following suit.
It would seem that the Obama administration has yet to satisfy the third part of Markey’s request, as well. Markey happens to be the newest member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the same that his predecessor John Kerry chaired before leaving the Senate to become Secretary of State. Yesterday, the committee held hearings on the Syria proposal with Kerry and other Obama officials. The Huffington Post’s Zach Carter reports that Kerry declined Markey’s request for intelligence to be declassified.
One wonders if Kerry’s rebuff played a role in Markey’s lack of support today when the committee voted to pass a resolution to authorize an attack. In the 10-7 vote, Markey was the only member to vote “Present.”
In comments to the Boston Globe, he raises concerns about the resolution but speaks like someone mainly needing more time to review the facts. “A `no’ vote would have indicated I had sufficient information on which to base the decision,” he says. “Which I did not.” In another press release (like yesterday’s, helpfully posted on his website), Markey adds that “I need to review all of the relevant classified materials relating to this matter before I make a decision as important as authorizing the use of military force.”
However, that same press release indicates Markey may prove to be a hard sell for the warmongers. Most of it consists of detailed criticism of the resolution’s broadness, and again raises the issue of unintended consequences and entanglement in Syrian affairs.
Although Markey isn’t an outright “No” at this point, his position has become much more skeptical and critical than the senator who promoted the idea of surgical strikes last week. Has consideration of the situation, and warfare’s inability to achieve simple, clear-cut solutions, moved him in the other direction? Have comments from his constituents done the same? Have John Kerry and the Obama admin’s glib comparisons to Hitler and Munich alienated him?
Which way will this Foreign Relations Committee member swing when the full Senate votes next week? If you oppose attacking Syria and you haven’t let Markey and your other elected officials know where you stand, the time is now.
howlandlewnatick says
People seem to be catching on that Syria is not the threat to American people that the administration is. With the administration’s problems with NSA illegal spying, gun running, Benghazi deaths, IRS political targeting (whew), our leadership needs the people to refocus. What better than a war. A tactic as old as history.
No mention of the real possibility that the Syrians might shoot back. What happens if a US ship is sunk? What if Iran joins in to assist its ally? Anyone know what their treaty says? What of Russia & China? They do have nuclear weapons and can we expect them to be idle?
Maybe Mr Markey is letting it settle in that this is not about humanitarianism, it is about power. The US kills more men, women and children than Mr Assad and his cronies. Our Al-qaeda allies in Syria kill with abandon as the war mongers of Washington beat the drum. Do we really believe our government cares if poison gas is used? How many more lives will be gamed for the good of the administration?
It’s not just politics anymore.
“The zeal which begins with hypocrisy must conclude in treachery; at first it deceives, at last it betrays” –Francis Bacon, Sr.
kittyoneil says
Profiles in courage. A good old present vote.
jconway says
“I have no strong feelings one way or the other”.
jconway says
On video
llp33 says
Re-election next year.
Given the reports of fierce public opposition around the country, a Yes vote could prove to be a big, unwanted liability for Markey, especially if the US gets further entangled in Syria. (And who thinks we wouldn’t?)
justice4all22 says
an elected official cares more about getting re-elected than in doing what’s right…is the day he or she ceases to be effective. Voting “present” is lame, in my opinion.
Christopher says
…but I don’t think the present vote is evidence of that in this case.
dan-p says
This is exactly why I was lukewarm about Markey from the get-go.
maxdaddy says
With every respect, the nostrums attributed to Sen. Warren in the AP article have been overtaken by events. There is a very broad White House proposal that has been only somewhat scaled back by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Does Sen. Warren support the reported language or does she oppose it? We all get it that we need to be careful. But where is she? She, after all, has a Senate vote, and we do not.