The vigorous debate took shape Tuesday behind closed doors. Dems divided on Obama's Syria plan

The deep divisions among Democrats over President Barack Obama’s plan to attack Islamic State militants foreshadow fights ahead within the party over how aggressively to assert itself on foreign policy.

A growing number of rank-and-file Democrats are worried that the president’s plans would commit the United States to an open-ended conflict against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, costing the country blood and treasure in another unpredictable Mideast war. Yet party leaders and senior Democrats believe now is the time to stand behind the commander in chief, given the lack of viable options and the deepening crisis threatening to plunge the region into further turmoil.


The vigorous debate took shape Tuesday behind closed doors, over a private Senate Democratic lunch and multiple closed-door meetings of anxious House Democrats. And it comes as the first part of the president’s war strategy — to give Obama new authority to train and equip Syrian rebels — heads to a critical House vote Wednesday.

( Also on POLITICO: The challenges facing Obama's coalition)

While that measure is expected to pass with the support of many House and Senate Democrats, the backing within the ranks remains tepid, according to numerous lawmakers. That means that when the time comes for the White House to seek a full-blown authorization to use military force in the region later in the year, it is certain to be an even heavier lift for the president, who already has personally reached out to lawmakers and dispatched his senior aides to cool nerves on Capitol Hill — not to mention delivered a prime-time address to the nation last week.

“I know he talks about a 40-country coalition — is it a papier-mâché coalition, or is it for real?” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said Tuesday. “Are these guys putting the same kinds of resources that we are? … I asked those questions; I did not get an answer.”

When asked about the plan to aid the Syrian rebels, Tester added: “If we’re talking about throwing additional dollars, we need to know where it’s going, we need to know who is paying for it, we need to know if it’s just flat going on the debt.”

( Also on POLITICO: Reid, McConnell agree on CR, Syria)

The White House has requested $500 million as part of the program to train Syrian rebels, though the House plan does not appropriate those funds, instead relying on overseas contingency money to pay for the program. But as the military conflict carries on — potentially, for years — the president will almost certainly have to come to Congress eventually, either seeking a formal authorization for war or for a supplemental funding request that could cost into the billions. It could be a heavy lift.

“This strategy is by no means perfect,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “The question is, will it work in light of all the risks? It is, in my view, a strategy that has a number of risks, and I need to be convinced that the risks have been reduced as far as possible.”

“As far as I’m concerned, the more I get briefed, the more concerned I am,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) after a Tuesday briefing with Tony Blinken, a senior White House national security adviser. “I don’t understand the end game.”

( Also on POLITICO: Martin Dempsey: Ground troops possible)

The debate comes as the president’s sinking poll numbers are making him a liability for Democrats, who are eager to showcase distance from the White House ahead of the midterm elections. Nearly six in 10 Americans disapproved of the president’s handling of foreign policy, according to a recent George Washington University battleground poll, and Democrats who are running for reelection want little ownership of the unpredictable war plans.

“I have concerns about that,” Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, a vulnerable Democrat facing voters in less than 50 days, said Tuesday when asked about the plan to arm the Syrian rebels. “My concern would be that the people we arm today may be our enemies tomorrow.”

The Syria debate highlights a Democratic party that is trapped between an anti-war base and a White House attempting to showcase military might in the Middle East. The divisions also reveal a party trying to find its way in a post-Obama era as many Democrats are eager to close ranks behind Hillary Clinton, whose national security views are more hawkish than the president’s.

Follow @politico

Hoping to minimize intraparty divides, the White House and Senate Democratic leaders lack an appetite for a prolonged debate over the military strategy during the abbreviated September session. But as the debate over the war takes shape on the campaign trail, the same Senate Democrats who seized on public discord with the Iraq War in 2008 now are faced with GOP efforts to seize on Obama’s policy against ISIL to sow doubts about the leadership in Washington.

Alaska Sen. Mark Begich, an endangered Democrat up for reelection who strongly opposes the administration’s Syria rebel plan, said he would vote against a bill to keep the government open if it includes the provision as expected.

“It’d be very problematic for me to vote for that if that’s combined,” Begich said. “They should be separate.”

Added another 2014 Democrat, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon: “It’s very clear that arming the moderate vetted groups is problematic through the fact that there are so many different groups that they are so small, so changing — that they run the risk of changing alliances.”

Sen. Al Franken, a liberal from Minnesota who was elected in 2008 and is also facing voters in the fall, is “still consulting with experts to make sure that this is the best course of action,” a spokesperson said.

But another at-risk Democrat, Kay Hagan from North Carolina, plans to support the Syria measure, an aide said.

On Tuesday, senior military officials testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that they were confident that the president’s plan — to launch a barrage of airstrikes, train and identify roughly 5,000 rebels from the Free Syrian Army and work with a coalition of allies — would eventually degrade ISIL. Still, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he would recommend that Obama send ground troops to the region if the situation called for it.

But the plan that is under consideration in the House would not call for ground troops, instead focusing narrowly on the training of Syrian rebels and force the administration to report to Congress on its progress. It would expire as the Hill revisits the issue after the elections in a lame-duck session of Congress.

Powerful Senate chairmen who are immersed in national security issues, like Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), are supportive of the measure and believe the president has put forward a robust initial strategy. The plan is backed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who is pledging to deliver votes from her caucus to push it through the House on Wednesday.

“A number of elements of a successful strategy against ISIS are embodied in the approach outlined by the president last week,” Levin said, citing the administration’s efforts to attract a large coalition that includes Arab nations as well as ensuring the Iraqi government’s support of U.S. airstrikes.

But even as Feinstein called the House plan a “good” proposal, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) panned it as “too general” and “hard to base a strategy” on.

Still, as Congress races to head home with little debate over the president’s plans, many Democrats argue that they’re willing to back the White House — for now.

“By and large, I think people know this is the best alternative among a lot of bad choices,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

Jeremy Herb and Burgess Everett contributed to this report.