“This idea that a military response is the only way to respond to what is happening in Syria is just not true,” Marco Rubio at today’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s mark-up on the resolution authorizing U.S. intervention in the country. He argued for more engagement with opposition forces as an alternative to the president’s proposal, lamenting the lack of more U.S. involvement earlier in the crisis, and called missile strikes in Syria “counterproductive.”
“Had we forcefully engaged in empowering moderate rebels, today we would have more and better options before us,” the Florida senator said at today’s committee mark-up meeting. “Instead, unfortunately, the president, with the support of some voices in my own party, chose to let others lead instead, and now we are dealing with the consequences of that inaction.”
Rubio forcefully argued that the situation in Syria is “a vital national-security concern for the United States,” however distant it might seem. But, he said, using U.S. military force in the conflict would not accomplish the stated goals and make the situation in the region worse, by emboldening the Assad region and destabilizing the region. The most effective solution to concerns over chemical weapons, he said, would be for the rebel forces to defeat Assad. He proposed encouraging this outcome by arming “carefully and properly vetted” members of the opposition, and putting severe sanctions on individuals and financial institutions aiding the regime.
“I remain unconvinced that the use of force proposed here will work,” Rubio said. “The only thing that will prevent Assad from using chemical weapons in the future is for the Syrian people to remove him from power.”
The committee passed the resolution for military action by a 10–7 vote. Rubio was one of five Republicans to vote against the measures, along with Wyoming’s John Barrasso, Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, and Idaho’s Jim Risch; Senator John McCain voted for the resolution.
Comments