Editorial: Huffman’s ‘careful’ approach on Syria makes sense

September 09, 2013

Rep. Jared Huffman has an important vote to cast.

He will be voting on whether to support President Barack Obama's plan to launch a military strike on Syria for that civil war-torn regime's use of chemical weapons on its civilians. The administration estimates 1,429 people, including more than 400 children, were killed. It was a horrific and despicable act, deserving global condemnation.

The issue for Huffman, Americans and other nations is whether the appropriate remedy is firing missiles into Syria, in hopes of punishing and weakening Syrian President Bashar Assad's bloody hold on his country. Huffman, Marin's representative in the House of Representatives, is one of the few Americans who has a vote. Support for Obama's plan has grown, including from both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington. Huffman, a first-term Democrat, has doubts that Obama's is the right strategy.

We share his reservations, as do many others in Marin, across our nation and around the world.

He is skeptical despite being privy to a number of briefings and conference calls in which the Obama administration has detailed Assad's offenses and the president's strategy for conducting a surgical attack on Syria's military operations without committing ground troops to another Middle East war.

Even after hearing the president's case, Huffman says he's not convinced. "I'm not persuaded that unilateral military action by the United States is a good idea in this situation," he said. Huffman, who has been a strong backer of the president, said he's not sure what the bombing would accomplish and is concerned about the possibility it will force the U.S. into further military involvement.

"I'm not saying nothing should be done. There should be accountability. But we need to be smart and careful about how we as one country proceed," he told the IJ last week.

Obama and his administration have not yet presented a persuasive case that we are not headed for another war and that firing cruise missiles will bring peace for Syrians. Obama and the military stand ready to order and deploy attacks; however, he also wants congressional approval first.

Those votes, including Huffman's, will be cast this week. Obama plans to address the nation Tuesday night to make his case and build support.

We are prepared to listen. Seeking congressional approval first rather than after bombs hit their targets is a bold and important move by the president.

Huffman is not the only member of Congress questioning when we will learn from past mistakes, such as grave strategic errors in Afghanistan and Iraq, and thinking we can bomb nations into becoming peace-loving democracies. The use of chemical weapons was an international offense that warrants international action.

Maybe by Tuesday night, Obama will present a stronger case that he has international support, if not a military alliance. So far, the number of nations willing to join the U.S. in a military strike has been less impressive than the alliance that stood with the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of State John Kerry has been Obama's point man, here and abroad.

"This is not the time for armchair isolationism. This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter," he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week.

But Obama said Friday he's "not itching" to launch an attack on Assad, and he's open to alternative strategies.

Building a strong international coalition has to be one of them.

The Assad regime's use of chemical weapons on its own civilians is a heinous international crime. The world needs to take action. Russia and China need to be pressed to join, if only to force the regime to remove its chemical weaponry.

Huffman has the heavy responsibility to cast a vote on this critical and complex issue. His approach toward that vote has been wise and, appropriately, careful.