Today, I released the following statement on the resolution to authorize military action in Syria.
I cannot support the resolution that passed the Foreign Relations Committee to use force in Syria because it is too broad, the effects of a strike are too unpredictable, and because I believe we must give diplomatic measures that could avoid military action a chance to work. I commend Secretary Kerry and President Obama for their steadfastness during this conflict, which has brought Syria and Russia back to the negotiating table.
The administration’s intended military action in Syria is designed to deter and degrade the Assad’s regime’s chemical weapons capability. I agree with such intentions – the use of chemical weapons is a heinous and horrific act outside the bounds of civilized conduct. However, I am concerned about the unintended consequences of the strikes and the potential for triggering an even greater conflagration that could be beyond our ability to predict or control.
I have read the full classified intelligence report prepared by our nation’s intelligence community about the August 21st chemical weapons attack. I have also reviewed other relevant intelligence reports on Syria. I have consulted with a wide range of experts on Syria and the region. I have participated in multiple classified briefings and hearings on Syria.
After weighing all the information, I do not dispute the evidence that the administration has presented about Assad’s use of chemical weapons. However, I do not believe that the resolution as currently written is the most effective way for our country to accomplish its objectives in Syria. Moreover, I believe that such a military strike could actually make it more difficult for our nation to achieve its goals in this volatile region of the world.
I am opposed to the current resolution for three reasons.
One, it is too broad due to last minute changes added to the document. The resolution to authorize military force began as surgical strikes, but now includes provisions that explicitly endorse regime change by calling for changing the conditions on the battlefield in Syria. In fact, media reports indicate that the broadening of the language already has led to the Pentagon also expand its list of targets.
Two, I am troubled that the unintended consequences of a strike against Syria could draw America’s servicemen and women into the Syrian civil war.
Three, due to Secretary Kerry’s efforts, the Syrians, Russians, United Nations, and the international community are all coming to the negotiating table. We should take advantage of this new diplomatic opportunity before we consider military action. Any resolution considered by Congress should include language that that anticipates that force would not be used if Syria agrees and abides by Secretary Kerry’s suggestion that Assad puts all of Syria’s chemical weapons under international control. Without such a diplomatic off-ramp, the current resolution embraces use of military force even as Russia, Syria, France, Great Britain, and the UN appear to be moving in the direction of a diplomatic resolution of this crisis.
It is important that we keep the pressure on the Syrians and the Russians to follow through with this new diplomatic option. It must not be used as a delaying tactic by the Assad regime. I will work with my Senate colleagues and the administration to do so.
But I cannot, and will not, support a resolution that is inconsistent with the principles that I have outlined today.
I afree with the French proposal floated earlier today – there needs to be a threefold approach to the diplomatic solution:
1.) The plan must be approved by a UN resolution
2.) Syria gives up all weapons, including their VX tipped SCUD missiles, and the entire stockpile is destroyed under international supervison
3.) The people who authorized and launched the attack on 8/21 are surrendered for trial in the World Court.
…yet I do not see it on my front page.
I do not understand the “Present” Vote, and I would much rather you vote NO then not vote at all.
Thanks for making the right call, Sen. Markey! Your statement is a little, er, generous about John Kerry’s negotiation “efforts,” but no doubt you made your decision under considerable pressure, since your predecessor in the Senate has been one of the loudest sabre-rattlers. Your position will help promote a peaceful way forward and not make a difficult situation worse with warfare.
I’d rather he vote against it after he was for it, than the other way around.
You make it sound like the Syrians are merely watching a football game with a few rowdies in the crowd. What Assad did represents an escalation of an already ugly WAR… And any ‘sabre rattling’ by Kerry (or anyone else) is lost in the clamor of actual sabre’s clashing.
It’s interventionists like you for whom American warfare is a game, self-gratifying and cost-free.
Interesting… I merely point out the flaws in your argument and you come back with a completely made up argument. I don’t know where you’ve been but I’ve been on BMG for years. All my posts are there for you to see. Why don’t you read a few and see if you still come to that conclusion…
and I’m not obliged to research your past posts before replying to such an off-base screed. Where do you get off scolding me for welcoming an attempt at diplomacy and a vote against launching yet more warfare? Where at all in my 1st comment did I minimize Syria to a football game? I fail to see what the purpose of your comment even was–except to bash someone for praising Markey’s decision against intervention.
Maybe if you did, you’d be less prone to make boneheaded statements.
I scolded you for getting your assertions wrong. ‘sabre rattling‘ is a prelude to war: it refers to actions prior to hostilities by those individuals who either wish to START a war, or scare off those who don’t have the stomach for the fight. Your use of the phrase demonstrates a blatant misreading of the situation.
The war has begun. It is started. I pointed out that we are well past the point of sabre rattling: actual sabres are clashing. People are presenting options in the hope of preventing further escalation, both in scope of weapons and in scope of geography. But the time of sabre rattling is long long over.
That you respond to my scolding with even more,/b> blatant misreading of my intentions and statements is somewhat bold of you…
Strike three. Markey, if you’ve read what he wrote, never decided against intervention. You have, again, blatantly, egregiously and nearly grotesquely misread what the Hon Sen Markey wrote. Markey would vote for more limited intervention. That’s what he said. That’s what he wrote. He voted against the present authorization on the grounds that it was too broad. That’s all.
That comment is pretty much a baseless insult. Please back up your assertion that petr is an “interventionist” or that he thinks “warfare is a game” that is “cost-free”. Sorry, but this comment is pure, lazy BS on your part.
Yes, there are interventionists for whom warfare is a game. If one reflects a bit on the popular verb “to nuke” as in to exterminate millions of human lives through a nuclear bomb, yes, our culture is rich in dehumanizing, game-like ways to think about war. Otherwise we’d never have a word like that whose second meaning is “to cook with a microwave”. I doubt residents of Nagasaki are so “playful” with verbs like “nuke”.
It’s not clear that petr is an interventionist — or, even if an interventionist, a callous one. That’s an enormous leap. Take from me because I think I have earned a bit of anti-interventionist cred.
Further, the commenting threads on blogs like BMG do function as a sort of virtual community. That, in fact, is how we come to know the personalities of so many colorful, but anonymous contributors. Petr’s protestations about his/her longevity here are not beside the point.
Yes, there are interventionists for whom warfare is a game. If one reflects a bit on the popular verb “to nuke” as in to exterminate millions of human lives through a nuclear bomb, yes, our culture is rich in dehumanizing, game-like ways to think about war. Otherwise we’d never have a word like that whose second meaning is “to cook with a microwave”. I doubt residents of Nagasaki are so “playful” with verbs like “nuke”.
It’s not clear that petr is an interventionist — or, even if an interventionist, a callous one. That’s an enormous leap. Take from me because I think I have earned a bit of anti-interventionist cred.
Further, the commenting threads on blogs like BMG do function as a sort of virtual community. That, in fact, is how we come to know the personalities of so many colorful, but anonymous contributors. Petr’s protestations about his/her longevity here are not beside the point.
had trouble posting this and I guess I was too successful.
John Kerry had absolutely nothing to do with this. Nor, might one add, did Susan Rice, the president’s national security adviser, or Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. They’ve all been too busy delivering belligerent speeches to bend their energies to having on the president’s desk a proposal actually tabled by the Russian government. So the entire top of our foreign policy apparatus has failed utterly to use the Syrian government’s very grave transgressions as a means to a higher end, moving ahead the only thing that will bring the Syrian carnage to an end, which is vigorous and disciplined diplomacy.
I think you set out a solid rationale for opposing the resolution. Of course that rationale only works if ultimately you are prepared to endorse a military response if the diplomatic path fails and the Assad regime does not abandon its chemical weapons. That has to remain on the table for the diplomatic route to be credible. The President has pulled back from an immediate authorization vote, but if the Russians and Assad stall then we should be prepared to revisit quickly a resolution to use force. Whadya think?
Tonight, all seven candidates had something to say about military strikes on Syrian soil. None of the seven Democrats pushed to bomb Syria. The Democrat candidates (such as Massachusetts State Senator Katherine Clark) found difficult to sit through and watch footage showing the casualties of Bashir Assad’s chemical attack. State Senator Karen Spilka said flat out that she is Jewish, meaning that she is sensitive about human beings getting chemically gased until they lose their lives. Our County Sheriff Peter Koutoujian also brought up his ethnic identity, Armenian, and thus stood as being historically aware of how can genocides more than scar a heritage. I like my sheriff’s explanation best, not alien to views shared in this our blog, that our country the United States of America does not and will “not find a natural ally” in either ruling or opposition sides, which subsist on Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda members.
Thank you, Senator Markey, for posting your explanation here. I want to address your 3 main points in reverse order:
3) The diplomatic process to have Assad hand over and destroy his chemical weapons would indeed be the best possible outcome, and I hope that the plan works. But the authority to use force hanging over the process would be a benefit to achieving this result.
2) You know that’s a ridiculous point. We are not getting involved in the civil war. Period.
1) I think you are right that the last minute changes to expand the scope of the authorization were a bad idea and that should be fixed either by amendments or in conference. However, I don’t think it is worth voting against the authorization of for that reason alone.
I am very disappointed but not surprised that some one who voted to give President Bush the authorization to invade Iraq with the goal of regime change based on a combination of flimsy and false evidence, would now consider voting against the authorization of force for President Obama to strike at weapon delivery targets in order to degrade the possibility of repeated use, based on overwhelming and blatant evidence of the Assad regime using these weapons.
Looking at the history of US military interventions since World War II, there are none except Kosovo that I can think of that rise to the level of justification and necessity that a strike against Syria would if they refuse to disarm. I marched in the streets to try to prevent an unjustified invasion of Iraq, and for the same reasons believe that this strike on Syria would be necessary. I am disappointed that you like most Americans seem to have turned away from a just military action when you bought into the Iraq disaster.
I think Markey felt burned by his Iraq vote, which explains his — and a lot of people’s — reluctance to get involved, and to take administration claims and assurances at face value.
By virtue of bombing targets affiliated with the government because it attacked rebel forces with chemical weapons that is exactly what we are doing. We are not bombing the rebels for their chemical attacks, we are not trying to stop their wholesale slaughter of civilians-only Assad’s. And thanks to
McCain and Graham we have to arm the rebels to for this to have a hope of passing the Senate. We can disagree on the right course of action and the necessity of involvement-but there is no question that getting involved in a civil war and choosing sides is exactly what the US is proposing to do.