Many Republicans are lining up to sink Obama’s war authorization vote. Party of hawks is dovish on Syria

Of all the unexpected turns in the Syria debate, one stands out most: The GOP, the party of a muscular national defense, has gone the way of the dove.

A decade after leading the country into Iraq and Afghanistan, Republicans have little appetite or energy for a strike aimed at punishing Bashar Assad for allegedly gassing his own people. To the contrary, many of the party’s lawmakers are lining up to sink President Barack Obama’s war authorization vote.


Of the 279 Republicans currently in the House and Senate, 84 were also serving in October 2002. All, with the exception of one, voted to give George W. Bush authorization to invade Iraq. Now, just 10 of those 84 have come out in support of striking Syria. Most of the others have expressed serious reservations or are leaning against voting for the authorization.

That the shift has many possible causes — the enormous toll of American lives and taxpayer dollars exacted by two faraway wars since 2001, the antagonism toward a Democratic president, the very different circumstances in Syria than Iraq — makes it no less remarkable. From the Vietnam War through the Cold War and into Afghanistan and Iraq, an aggressive foreign policy has been as much a part of the Republican Party’s identity as low taxes and opposition to abortion.

( PHOTOS: What lawmakers said then (Iraq) and now (Syria))

To appreciate the ideological upheaval on foreign policy the GOP is in the midst of, look back to when George W. Bush was running for reelection in 2004. Bush was casting himself as America’s fearless defender and castigating Democratic nominee John Kerry as a weak-kneed wobbler. On Capitol Hill last week, it was Kerry, now secretary of state, making the case for military action — and many of his longtime GOP adversaries arguing against it.

The situations in Iraq and Syria are far from parallel. In 2002, there was a strong possibility of an outright invasion and American boots on the ground to topple a Middle East dictator; that isn’t the case now. Obama has said the Syrian operation would be limited in scope, aimed at destroying only chemical weapons installations. Regime change, Obama has reiterated, isn’t the goal.

Still, listening to some Republicans lately, it’s hard to believe that they’re the same crowd who led the charge into Iraq.

( WATCH: Timeline of Syria crisis response)

In 2002, Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe argued in a speech that Saddam Hussein posed a grave threat to the U.S. and that Bush’s critics were wrong to focus on the possibility that the country would get bogged down in Iraq, as it did it Vietnam.

“To them I ask, are they more concerned about a war that took place over 30 years ago,” Inhofe said, “or the tragic events that took place on September 11?”

But getting bogged down in Syria is what worries Inhofe — the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee — most.

A strike, he told The Oklahoman last week, “would be defined in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, as a major act of war by the United States. And then we’re going to get drawn into something deeper.”

( PHOTOS: Syria: Where politicians stand)

Or take Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who during the Iraq debate said the U.S. had little choice but to act militarily.

“The reason we must deal with this threat now is both clear, convincing and chilling … this danger will not disappear on its own, and the price we may have to pay today to eliminate this threat will prove modest compared to the price we will have to pay tomorrow,” she said in 2002.

When it comes to Syria, Collins had this to say, according to CBS News: “What if we execute this strike, and then [Assad] decides to use chemical weapons again? Do we strike again? Well, that’s the definition of further entanglement. That’s the definition of our becoming deeply involved in a war.”

( Also on POLITICO: W.H. Syria push has mixed messages)

In 2002, Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi said Hussein was “dangerous because he is cunning and very calculated … Repeatedly, he pushes the international community to the brink point and then backs down and says — sure, let the weapons inspectors come back. How many times are we going to let him play this game?”

With Syria, Enzi says he hasn’t “seen any reason to enter a war and risk American lives when there is no clearly defined national security interest and allies have not been cultivated.”

Ever since Dwight Eisenhower was in the Oval Office, the Republican Party has been known for its internationalist approach to foreign affairs. After Democrats became disillusioned and dovish following the quagmire in Vietnam, Ronald Reagan helped solidify the GOP reputation as strong on national defense.

Republicans haven’t always been on board with an interventionist approach abroad — many GOP members of Congress opposed Bill Clinton’s intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo during the 1990s — but that was a rare exception.

The role reversal applies to some Democrats, too. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, representing the anti-war hotbed of San Francisco, was one of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq invasion a decade ago. Now she’s in the uncomfortable position of trying to spare Obama the embarrassment of seeing her caucus snub him on the Syria vote.

Sen Barbara Boxer, another California Democrat and hero of the anti-war left during Iraq, is similarly singing a different tune now.

During the Iraq debate, Boxer said: “I cannot vote for a blank check for unilateral action … in this case, when the presidentStill, the we-must-strike message from Boxer isn’t exactly what her constituents are used to. is proposing to go it alone, I think we have the right on behalf of the people we represent to have the questions answered.”

Boxer now rejects comparing Iraq to Syria, stressing that it would be a much narrower mission.

“The failure to act, I think, gives license to the Syrian president to use these weapons again,” the senator said recently. “And it sends a terrible signal to other brutal regimes like North Korea.”

But the turnabout among Republicans is more extensive and striking. Their opposition is in no small part a reflection of exhaustion of combat in a battle-ravaged Arab world. While hawkish figures like Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are still influential, isolationist-minded libertarianism, a peripheral strain of the GOP, has taken on new prominence symbolized by the rise of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

The GOP’s mood, say some Republicans, has changed since Sept. 11, 2001.

“Obviously, in 2002 we were fresh on the heels of 9/11, and as time goes on, a sense of danger fades somewhat, because our military and intelligence has done such a good job,” Texas GOP Rep. Mac Thornberry, who holds seats on the Armed Services and Intelligence committees, said in an interview.

“There is a somewhat different culture” now, added Thornberry, who supported the Iraq War resolution and who’s leaning toward opposing a strike.

But politics is also unquestionably at play. The GOP’s resistance has to do not just with the proposed mission but who’s leading the charge. Having Obama making the case instead of Bush, makes a difference.

In 2002, South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson took to the House floor to call for wiping out Hussein, “a bloodthirsty dictator who has access to chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.”

Now, Wilson has little interest in taking on Assad. During Kerry’s appearance at a House Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, Wilson — who infamously yelled “You lie” at Obama during an address to a joint session of Congress — accused the administration of pushing for military action to cover up for the Benghazi, Internal Revenue Service and National Security Agency controversies that have plagued the White House.

For Republicans like Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, though, not wanting to go into Syria simply has to do with not repeating past mistakes.

“The thing we should have learned with Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan is it’s easy to get into these things and it’s tough to get out,” Boozman, who voted for the Oct. 2002 Iraq War resolution, said at Southern Arkansas University Tuesday, according to the Magnolia Reporter. “I don’t know that there really is a good path.”

CORRECTION: The original version of this story misstated the number of currently-serving congressional Republicans who voted on the 2002 Iraq war resolution. It also misstated the number of Republicans who supported the resolution.

CORRECTION: Corrected by: Jessica Huff @ 09/09/2013 10:40 AM CORRECTION: The original version of this story misstated the number of currently-serving congressional Republicans who voted on the 2002 Iraq war resolution. It also misstated the number of Republicans who supported the resolution.