The administration has hardly delivered consensus on what a U.S. response should be. Syria problem takes center stage

There’s never been more pressure for President Barack Obama do something about Syria. And there’s never been less consensus on what he could do, or should do.

The situation crystallized Sunday, with his administration saying there is “very little doubt” that Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people.


Yet that admission hardly delivered consensus on what the U.S. response should be. Key members of the House and Senate committees weren’t rushing to offer solutions, other than a uniform insistence that no U.S. ground troops should be committed to removing Assad.

The Obama administration announced Sunday morning, via a senior administration official, that reports Assad will allow United Nations inspectors into the country — days after a reported attack — can’t possibly lead to proof that the regime isn’t using or harboring chemical weapons.

( Also on POLITICO: Obama lacks Syria silver bullet)

“At this juncture, the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the U.N. team is too late to be credible, including because the evidence available has been significantly corrupted as a result of the regime’s persistent shelling and other intentional actions over the last five days,” the official said.

“Based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts, and other facts gathered by open sources, the U.S. intelligence community, and international partners, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident.”

The White House, the official said, will continue to monitor the situation so Obama “can make an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons.”

( PHOTOS: Scenes from Syria)

Later, the White House said the president had spoken with French President Francois Hollande about the situation and “possible responses by the international community.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), in between tweets commemorating his trip to Mongolia, released a statement with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), calling for “decisive actions” to remove Assad.

“The United States must rally our friends and allies to take limited military actions in Syria that can change the balance of power on the ground and create conditions for a negotiated end to the conflict and an end to Assad’s rule,” the senators said. “Using stand-off weapons, without boots on the ground, and at minimal risk to our men and women in uniform, we can significantly degrade Assad’s air power and ballistic missile capabilities and help to establish and defend safe areas on the ground.”

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” said both that Assad is not to be trusted — and that it’s far from clear what to make of the rebel fighters trying to overthrow Syrian leader.

( Also on POLITICO: Powell: U.S. must wait on Egypt)

“I have no affection for Mr. Assad,” Powell said. “I’ve dealt with him, I know him. And he is a pathological liar with respect to my interaction with him.”

But, Powell said, there may be no good options for Americans to partner with among the Assad opposition.

“I am less sure of the resistance, what do they represent? Is it becoming even more radicalized with al-Qaeda coming in. And what would it look like if they prevail and Assad went? I don’t know.”

( Also on POLITICO: Engel: 'Have to move' on Syria)

And Powell, who as Secretary of State made President George W. Bush’s case for the Iraq war, said the United States cannot “make things happen,” but rather must nudge the Syrian actors in the right direction.

“We shouldn’t go around thinking that we can really make things happen,” Powell said. “We can influence things, we can be ready to help people when problems have been resolved or when one side has prevailed over the other, that’s when I think we can play a role. But to think that we can change things immediately just because we’re America, that’s not necessarily the case.”

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” called on Obama to ask for congressional authorization for a military strike on Assad’s forces, though he also specifically ruled out “boots on the ground.”

“I hope the president, as soon as we get back to Washington, will ask for authorization from Congress to do something in a very surgical and proportional way, something that gets [the Assad regime’s] attention, that causes them to understand that we are not going to put up with this kind of activity,” Corker said.

And yet the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee said Obama doesn’t need congressional permission to act in Syria — a sentiment certain to be shared by the White House.

“We have to move, and we have to move quickly,” Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), said while sharing the FOX program with Corker. “Congress needs to be involved, but perhaps not initially.”

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned that a U.S. military intervention must not lead to the broader involvement of American troops.

“We can’t let ourselves get into a situation where this becomes a springboard for a general military option,” Reed said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

In his next breath, Reed said the United States must prove to the international audience that Assad was behind the chemical weapons usage.

“We have to verify that it was directed by the Assad regime, because that will allow us to build an international coalition because that will allow us to take any further steps in Syria,” Reed said.

On the same program, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) warned against sending in U.S. ground troops, and cautioned that cruise missiles are no guarantee to eliminate Assad’s weapons stockpiles.

“I don’t think that American people have an appetite to put troops on the ground in Syria,” McCaul said.

Without offering much in the way of solutions on what Obama should do, McCaul repeatedly said he’s on “the American side” of the Syrian civil war, adding the situation is making Syria a magnet for Islamic extremist fighters seeking to oust Assad.

“Every time I get briefed on this issue, it gets worse because it’s become a Mecca for the jihadists,” he said. “They are traveling from all over the world, Al-Qaeda factions into Syria to fight the Assad regime.”