Kerry urges Syrians to fight 'Isis first' as Obama rules out combat mission – as it happened

Senator Ben Cardin, of Maryland, says he’s very concerned about policy with regard to Syria, but opens with a question about the AUMF, noting that each iteration has been tailored to its circumstances – saying “it’s imperative that we clarify [that the authorization] meets the current needs.”

“Syria’s going to be more difficult, because many of us are not goign to be prepared to authorize the use of force in Syria. The presdient has article two power – he has the right to take [limited military action]. But I just think it’s vital for moving forward beyond just the Obama administration.”

He asks for Kerry’s thoughts about how the US should be prepared to act in countries where “the military should be able to handle” the circumstances.

Kerry responds with a vague comment of how he sees Congress and the executive branch working together, and then diverges into comments from Iraq’s prime minister Haider al-Abadi about Isis being “a cancer” – and “specifically asking the US to help”.

Senator James Risch, of Idaho, asks Kerry who will provide combat forces on the ground, saying “frankly I’m not sure I believe” that moderate Syrian opposition exists that can take on Isis.

He also says that he sees the Kurds as by far the most capable and suited partner to defeat Isis, to which Kerry replies by praising Kurdish peshmerga – and reiterating that that will be between General John Allen and the coalition partners.

Senator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, is defending Kerry and says that the lawyers she’s consulted believe the administration has the authority by way of the AUMF to attack Isis.

She says that she supports the administration against Isil, though she opposed the Iraq war in 2003, and that “you cannot sit on the sidelines when you have a group that sells 14-year-olds as slaves, giving them as gifts … murdering ethnic minorities.”

“So no, I’m not going to sit idly by.”

When Boxer asks about Russia and Iran, Kerry says they’re problematic in terms of their support of Assad but that the US is not restrained by their policies.

About Iran, he says “we have had brief conversations on the side of our nuclear negotiations. … We’re prepared to see whether or not Iran can contribute in a constructive way, but that would [require] things changing on the ground in Syria [such as their support for Assad and Hezbollah].

“We would be negligent in not being open to listening for some change in the dynamic … or some constructive activity. But we’re not waiting for it … or coordinating with it.”

Getting testy with Corker, Kerry waves a list of countries and military forces, naming the Kurdish peshmerga among others, as countries and coalition partners who “are serious” about fighting Isis.

View image in fullscreen

Kerry replies by saying that the Syrian opposition has been fighting Isil for years, and that Isil is now on its heels.

“Our estimate is that there are still tens of thousands fighting for the Syrian opposition. … And most of that needs to be covered in a classified setting, as you know.”

He says this is in part why the Obama administration is pressing for Congress to authorize aid and training for the rebels, saying that the president wants to rapidly increase their ability to fight.

Corker cuts into the thin details of the plan, calling public statements about the plan “unrealistic”:

“The effort on the ground where Isil is based doesn’t match the rhetoric that the administration is putting forth … We have a strong sense that our military leaders have urged special forces on the ground … but this doesn’t even seem serious. It seems like a political answer … It doesn’t seem real to me.

“If you’re willing to tell me in a classified setting, fine. … But we know the free Syrian Army cannot take on Isil, we know that.

“We’re talking about decades. … I’m disappointed … I do want us to deal with this in an effective way. … I do hope we lay out a plan that will convince us that you’re serious about doing the things that you say you’re going to do about Isil … And I hope you’ll lay out a way to pay for it.”

It’s Senator Corker’s turn, and he immediately takes up Menendez’s worries about authorization from Congress. He says the administration is “exercising the worst judgment possible.”

His first question: “Tell me what’s been accomplished … What Sunni Arab country is going to [be flying air strikes and participating militarily]?”

Kerry: “Senator, you will be hearing that in the appropriate time in the coming days, as General John Allen determines…”

Corker: “So we will have Sunni Arab countries participating in the ground…”

Kerry: “No, I didn’t say the ground.”

Corker: “You can say the answers to my questions.”

Corker presses about coalition partners putting “boots on the ground”, and Kerry says at this point no country is talking about ground action, and that “we don’t think it’s a good idea”.

With regard to congressional authorization, Kerry says: “I’m asking. Do it. Pass it. But we’re not going to get stuck in the situation where we don’t have the authority.”

Menendez: “So it is correct that this will be a multi-year effort?”

Kerry describes attacks on the various dams and strategic points in Iraq, saying “with a proper effort we will have an impact.”

Menendez says he understands that the US has had a short-term impact, and gets Kerry to concede that the campaign will take years. He moves on to discussing the AUMF, the controversial and contested authorization for use of military force. He asks how the White House can try to use it now as justification.

Kerry replies by citing “very good lawyers who have studied” the 2001 AUMF, who he says have determined it applies to Isis due to a clause citing “associated forces” of al-Qaida; “Isil began as al-Qaida in Iraq – it only became this thing called Isil a year ago. It only became that out of convenience … not because their targets changed … they are the same people [that] we were attacking for all those years. A mere publicity stunt … to call yourself something else does not get you out.”

Menendez says he appreciates Kerry’s skills as a former prosecutor, and that he is on the same side as the administration’s concerns, but bluntly replies: “you’re going to need a new AUMF.”

Menendez: “It is my hope that when we refine the definition of the end state as it [pertains] to Isil … I’d like to hear how [it applies to the Syrian rebels’ fight against Assad].”

He follows up with a question: “Can we expect Sunni coalition members to take military action? We cannot let this be the west against the east.”

Kerry: “There are countries in Europe that are committed to take military action, there are countries in the Middle East to take military action … We will have sufficient commitment … It will be up to CentCom to determine who will do what.”

View image in fullscreen

Menendez: “As succinctly as you can – what is the end goal? … What is the political conditions that we’re seeking so that we know it’s time to end military action?”

Kerry: “Well, the military action ends when [Isis is dismantled] … ending [Isis’] ability to [live] in ungoverned spaces and safe haven.”

Kerry compares the effort to campaign against al-Qaida, saying the US will “reduce their abilities” to an extent that they’re no longer a threat to the US, its allies and Middle East nations.

Asked about Syria, Kerry says: “Ultimately there’s no solution to Syria without a political” resolution, but “Assad has shown no willingness to engage.”