The Syrian Debate, US Election Politics and the fight for the GOP's foreign policy

[EmperorScorpious]

[quote][B][U][I]Election politics evident in Syria chemical weapons debate[/I][/U][/B]

[B]While the 2014 contests faced by every House member and a third of the Senate are more proximate, the machinations at work in debating and acting on the Syria issue also are heavily focused on the balloting three years from now to choose Obama's successor[/B].

An expected Republican presidential contender, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, on Wednesday demonstrated the art of present and future political messaging in his statement explaining why he voted against a resolution authorizing limited military strikes in response to what he agreed was Syria's use of banned chemical weapons.

[B]Rubio blamed the Obama administration for mishandling U.S. reaction to Syria's civil war, with help from Republican isolationists, by failing to strongly back opposition rebels when the conflict erupted in 2011.[/B]

While he called then for "a more robust engagement" to help the Syrian people topple Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, Rubio said, he never advocated the use of U.S. military might in the conflict.

"Had we forcefully engaged in empowering moderate rebels, today we would have more and better options before us," he said. "But instead, unfortunately, the president, with the support of some voices in my own party, chose to let others lead instead. And now we are dealing with the consequences of that inaction."

That stance protected his conservative credentials by asserting military expertise, and also implicitly criticized two potential rivals for the White House in 2016 -- former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

As Obama's top diplomat, Clinton is automatically associated with the administration's response to the Syrian crisis until she stepped down early this year and was succeeded by John Kerry, a veteran Democratic senator.

Clinton, who had pushed for arming the Syrian rebels but was overruled by Obama, is considered the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination if she decides to run, which is widely expected. Her only statement so far on the current Syria question, issued by an aide, backed Obama's decision to seek congressional support for a military response.

Meanwhile, the libertarian Paul follows the same non-intervention policies espoused by his father, former GOP Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who mounted several unsuccessful runs for president.

[B]Like Rubio, Rand Paul also voted against the Syria authorization measure[/B] at Wednesday's meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which passed it by a 10-7 margin.

[B]To distinguish himself from Paul, Rubiov used his statement to directly attack what he called isolationist policies, saying: "Just because we ignore global problems doesn't mean they will ignore us."[/B]

"Instead, they become bigger and harder to solve, and sadly, Syria is just the latest example of that fundamental truth," Rubio said.[/quote]
[quote][B][U][I]The GOP's existential foreign policy battle[/I][/U][/B]

Washington (CNN) -- What a difference a decade makes.

When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney led the United States to war in Iraq over the issue of chemical weapons 11 years ago, they had the support of all but six of the majority Republicans in the House of Representatives.

Now there are three times as many Republicans on the record against a strike on Syria.Bush has declined to weigh in on Syria and[B] Cheney's daughter, Liz Cheney, running for U.S. Senate in a tough primary challenge against fellow Republican Mike Enzi in Wyoming, has come out against Obama's plan to strike Syria.

Cheney told a town hall meeting in Wyoming on Tuesday that Obama has taken "an amateurish approach to national security and foreign policy," according to the Jackson Hole News and Guide.[/B]

Cheney also said her opposition to intervention should not be misconstrued.

[B]"The press will try to portray this Syria debate as a battle between wings of the Republican Party," she said, according to the newspaper. "Don't believe them."[/B]

But there's a lot of evidence that there is a battle going on in the GOP. Start with Cheney, who has defended her father's involvement in the lead-up to the Iraq war and who, before she was a Senate candidate, talked about the need for red lines in Syria.

If Obama wants to lead the United States against Syria this year to ward off the spread of chemical weapons, he'll have to do it in spite of a Republican House, not with its help.

What happened between now and then? War -- 11 years of it in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those wars are not popular with Americans and neither is the prospect of military strikes within Syria. Two polls out Wednesday from ABC News/The Washington Post and from Pew showed opposition to military strikes far outweighed support.

There are stalwart security-minded Republicans who beat the drum and argue the United States should lead the international community against bad actors.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the party's standard-bearer in 2008, has been the single most vocal lawmaker in favor of U.S. military action against Syria.

But most of the convincing he'll have to do is among his own party, which rode the war on terror into Iraq on the premise of weapons of mass destruction.

[B]When McCain ran for president, he easily defeated Rep. Ron Paul of Texas in the primaries and at times he laughed off Paul's noninterventionist approach to foreign policy.

McCain isn't laughing now at Paul's son, Rand, the Kentucky Republican and potential 2016 presidential candidate who shares many of his father's noninterventionist views and is organizing the effort against a strike on Syria.[/B]

The first test vote on Capitol Hill came Wednesday when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10-7 in favor of the president's proposal. That's a margin close enough to raise questions about whether the proposal will have enough support to get beyond a filibuster. Five of the committee's Republicans, including Paul, voted no.

McCain joined the majority of Democrats in voting yes.

[B]A number of Republican leaders have joined the call for military strikes, including House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the top Republicans in the House. But they're just two of eight Republicans in the House to publicly endorse military action.[/B]

Other voices in the party are growing louder in their opposition. Sarah Palin, who defended the war in Iraq as McCain's running mate in 2008, posted a Facebook message on Syria that declared Americans should just let "Allah sort it out."[/quote]

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/politics/us-syria-politics/index.html[/url]

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/politics/gop-foreign-policy/index.html[/url]