Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons

S.J.Res.21
Introduced: 
September 6, 2013
113
First
September 6, 2013
Placed on Senate calendar

In response to the documented use of chemical weapons in Syria, specifically on 8/21/13, Pres. Obama requested authorization from Congress for the use of U.S. force in a military intervention. This joint resolution was the vehicle for that congressional authorization.

Pres. Obama justified the proposed intervention as a necessary measure for upholding the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. As Secy. of State John Kerry and Defense Secy. Chuck Hagel made clear in congressional testimonies on 9/3/13 and 9/4/13, the resolution’s primary objective was not to accelerate regime change in Syria. They did acknowledge, however, that degrading the Syrian government’s ability to use chemical weapons would affect its ability to wage war against the rebel groups.

Specifically, this resolution would authorize the president to order the U.S. military to deter the use of chemical weapons and to degrade the Syrian regime’s capacity to use such weapons in the future. It also includes a clause authorizing the military to restrict transfer of such weapons to terrorist groups. Though the tactical methods for accomplishing these goals are not listed in the resolution, they were widely broadcast in the media: limited missile strikes from U.S. navy vessels in the Mediterranean targeting Syrian chemical weapons facilities and depots.

In Congress, opponents of U.S. military intervention in Syria sought to restrict executive power by adding various clauses limiting the reach of this resolution. First, the authorization would be limited in terms of time, expiring 60 days after the resolution’s passage, although it could be extended for an additional 30 days if the president deemed an extension necessary. The authorization would also be limited in scope, with the resolution stating that authorization for the use of force would not include the use of U.S. armed forces ‘on the ground.’ It would also install congressional oversight procedures on the proposed intervention, including a rigid reporting schedule that would require updates on the intervention 10 days after the bill’s passage and every 20 days after that.

On 9/3, AIPAC announced its support for the bill. The next week, the organization fully mobilized its congressional lobbyists and its grassroots network to pressure lawmakers into supporting the joint resolution. In a press release advocating support, AIPAC played its hand openly, stating ‘this is a critical moment when America must also send a forceful message of resolve to Iran and Hezbollah’ (9/3/2013). Although it originated before this resolution’s introduction, AIPAC’s campaign was actually perceived as a late entry into the debate over military intervention.

A final vote on this resolution was precluded by the emergence of another viable U.S. response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, offered up by a Russian proposal on 9/10 that international monitors take over and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons with the approval of the Syrian regime. At this point, Pres. Obama asked Congress to delay a vote on the resolution and allow for bilateral negotiations with Russia on its proposal. On 9/14, the joint U.S.-Russian proposal was released for a bilaterally enforced removal of Syria’s chemical weapons. The plan entailed UN Security Council review and stringent verification processes along with a rigid timetable that would see the full removal of chemical weapons from Syria by the end of 2014.

Informal polling of the House and Senate indicated that the resolution was facing a majority opposition in both chambers before the Russian proposal emerged.

No cosponsors.

See also: S. 960 of 5/15/13.

Last major action: 9/6/13 Placed on Senate calendar. (9/6/13 passed in Senate Cmte. on Foreign Relations by yea-nay vote, 10–7.)

More info

For more information, Click Here to visit this measure’s page at congress.gov.

Legislation Topics