In the News

 

 

By Bill Glauber

 

There's one way to unite conservative Republican Sean Duffy and liberal Democrat Mark Pocan.

 

In separate interviews Wednesday, the two congressmen from Wisconsin both expressed intense skepticism about granting President Barack Obama the authority to use military force against the Syria government.

 

"I am leaning strongly no," Duffy said when asked how he might vote. "But I am going to a security briefing on Monday when I get in (to Washington, D.C.), so I'll keep an open mind. But from where my constituents are at, I'm strongly no."

 

Pocan said he hasn't been persuaded to approve a congressional resolution to support an attack on Syria and that calls from his constituents are running overwhelmingly against the use of force.

 

"I think we all agree that the use of chemical weapons is reprehensible," Pocan said. "Doing nothing is not an option. But I am not convinced that a military strike, especially done solely or nearly solely by us, makes a lot of sense."

 

Duffy and Pocan show that the usual party-line orthodoxy of a gridlocked Congress may not hold when it comes to figuring out what to do about Syria, whose regime has been accused of using chemical weapons against its people.

 

Right now, the Obama administration faces a tough lift to get any backing from the Wisconsin congressional delegation. Not a single member contacted by the Journal Sentinel was ready to back a resolution approving force.

 

And late Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) issued a statement opposing a U.S. strike on Syria.

 

"President Obama set a red line for action in Syria and is now in denial," Sensenbrenner said. "The actions by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime are reprehensible, but Congress did not set a red line for military action in Syria — President Obama did.

 

"And his plan for military force will not help the Syrian people or promote the freedom or security of the United States. Therefore, I oppose the President's plan and intend to vote against it when it is considered by the House."

 

Also Wednesday, Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin was among seven members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to vote against authorizing force against the Syrian government. The resolution passed by a 10-7 margin and goes before the full Senate next week.

 

"This is a pretty important matter," Johnson said. "I'm highly concerned that the administration's action will be ineffective. And I think ineffective action would be actually worse than no action whatsoever. I really did not get any kind of comfort level that this administration has adequately planned for the repercussions" of a strike against Syria.

 

"They may be able to provide me with that comfort over the next couple of days before we take the final vote," he added. "But right now I simply did not have the information or the answers to the questions I needed to even allow me to consider voting yes on this resolution."

 

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, the Democrat from Madison, said last week that her judgment on military action would be "based on whether clear, focused and achievable objectives and goals are set."

A bruising battle over Syria is expected to be waged in the House.

 

Reid Ribble, the Republican congressman who represents northeastern Wisconsin, said he will listen to the administration and "go to classified briefings to see if they can persuade me."

Ribble said based on news reports he has seen he is leaning against use of force.

 

"What would it take to get me there?" he said. "I mean I would have to see and be convinced that there is a national security interest of the United States to go into a militarily offensive mode here. At this point I'm not seeing it."

 

U.S. Rep. Tom Petri, the Republican from Fond du Lac, said he is "skeptical" about military action.

 

"I'm still looking around, hoping maybe there is something that would have a better chance of leading to some positive outcome rather than a choice of bad options," he said. "Military option doesn't automatically lead to better choices."

 

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, the former vice presidential candidate, said in a statement Tuesday that the president "needs to clearly demonstrate that the use of military force would strengthen America's security."

 

Even House Democrats, Gwen Moore and Ron Kind, still have to be convinced that an attack is in the nation's interest.

 

Moore said she was "trying to decide between something horrible and something horrible."

 

"I am really reaching out to every opinion I think is out there so that I can make sure that when I do make the decision I'm doing the best I can with regard to the facts, the history, the intelligence," Moore said.

Kind said the shadow of the Iraq war hangs over Congress.

 

"People just aren't going to accept on face value when they come before us saying we've got good information or good intelligence that such and such is true," Kind said. "We're going to want to see a higher level of proof."

 

Kind added that "after two long wars in the region the past decade, there is exhaustion and fatigue has set in."

 

Kind said he will ask the Obama administration "for a national intelligence assessment of what the day after may look like if we do launch cruise missiles into Syria."

 

"There are so many trip wires in this region," Kind said. "It's not just launching some missiles in there. It's what might become of that."