Chad Blair: Is Sen. Hirono Our Stateswoman on Syria?
UPDATED 1 p.m.
Most of Hawaii’s representatives in Washington, D.C., moved quickly to proclaim where they stood on a U.S. strike on Syria.
U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz got out front on the issue. Soon after President Obama , Schatz called for sanctions against Syria but never explicitly backed a military strike. More recently, he decided that he actually opposed another American military intervention.
CORRECTION An earlier version of this story said Schatz suggested that he embraced Obama’s call for a strike, but as Civil Beat reported earlier Schatz never explicitly backed a military strike, and he did say Congress should be involved in any decision to go to war.1
Our two U.S. representatives, Colleen Hanabusa and Tulsi Gabbard, came across as more decisive soon after when they concluded that they did not support taking the fight to Bashar al-Assad for his force鈥檚 alleged use of banned chemical weapons.
But given that there hadn鈥檛 been a deep national debate on the issue (and there still hasn’t), it makes me wonder: What if they are wrong?
That leads us to U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono, who is still mulling the right thing to do. The eldest and longest-serving member of the Hawaii delegation said 鈥 after the president’s national address Tuesday evening 鈥 that she wants to continue assessing the complex situation before coming to a conclusion. (She is 65, Hanabusa is 62, Schatz is 40 and Gabbard is 32.)
Clearly, the situation is changing rapidly. The reopening of diplomatic dialogue between Syria and the international community is a hopeful sign, but, like many others, I believe it’s too early to tell if the regime will follow through. I continue to assess the situation with our military leaders and listen to constituents as we proceed with diplomatic efforts.
In other words, she wants to take a deeper look at a complex situation in which people鈥檚 lives are on the line, regardless. It leads to the question: Mazie Hirono, elder stateswoman?
-
This is Schatz’s full statement on Aug. 30, following the president’s remarks that he was considering military action against Syria: 鈥淭he President and his National Security team have provided strong evidence that the Assad regime is responsible for the recent horrific chemical weapons attack against innocent Syrian civilians. We must send a clear message that the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and will not be tolerated by the United States or the international community. It is important that whatever actions the United States takes in Syria are consistent with America鈥檚 long-term strategic interests and are done with as broad an international coalition as possible. I know that the President, his National Security team, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are thinking carefully about their options in the coming days. The War Powers Act provides procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities, and it is critically important that both the executive and legislative branches comply with the provisions of the Act which require Congressional consultation.鈥
↩
Commenting Early and Often
It could be a coincidence. After all, Hirono was traveling in East Asia with a congressional delegation as the likelihood of U.S. intervention overtook the headlines.
Or it could be that she feels the least political pressure. Hirono doesn鈥檛 have to worry about a re-election campaign until 2018.
Sen. Schatz video message to Asia-Pacific Clean Energy Summit and Expo.
But Hirono’s response seems appropriately cautious, reflecting a reluctance to rush to judgement. Schatz, Hanabusa and Gabbard, for example, weighed in on Syria before Obama really began to lay out his case and before Congress began to debate resolutions authorizing a military response.
As Hirono pointed out, things are moving very quickly, and quite unexpectedly.
Who would have predicted just a few days ago that Vladimir Putin would offer himself up as an emissary of peace?
Despite what the president and Secretary of State John Kerry insist, we don’t yet know exactly what happened in Syria. (If the president and Kerry are certain about the Assad regime鈥檚 responsibility for using chemical weapons, they face a much higher burden of proof before justifying acts of war than President George W. Bush did prior to his invasion of Iraq.)
And new information is surfacing.
On Wednesday, that United Nations investigators have established that Syrian government forces “were almost certainly responsible for two massacres last May in which up to 450 civilians were killed.” A report by the German publication Deutsche Welle the same day said the UN concluded that human rights violations have been committed .
As The New York Times , “Bolstered by weapons and money from regional and global powers waging a proxy war, Syria’s government and rebel forces have committed murder, torture, rape and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, without fear of future punishment.”
All of us may be sickened by the indiscriminate killing of children, as Obama said Tuesday, but how do we decide which massacre is the more inhumane and thus deserving of response? (Is using poison gas the line?) If there are some very bad apples among the rebels do they taint all of the people who are fighting to get rid of an autocratic leader? And how, exactly, will a “targeted military strike” stop or limit such evil?
Thoughtful and Forthright Views
I am not challenging the positions of Schatz, Hanabusa and Gabbard on attacking Syria. The two House reps in particular have been thoughtful and forthright in their views on how to deal with the apparent chemical weapons attacks in Syria, responsive to how their constituents feel about a U.S. response and available to the media for elaboration.
Rep. Gabbard interview with KHON, Fox News rooftop in Washington, D.C.
As early , Hanabusa, while expressing that “the world has a moral obligation to pursue an appropriate response to any use of these inhumane and illegal weapons,” also insisted that Obama consult Congress and others before taking any military action.
By this Tuesday, two hours after the president’s national address, her congressional office saying that Hanabusa was “pleased” with the plan to pursue a diplomatic solution. She also reminded everyone, “From the start I believed that the President didn鈥檛 have the authority for unilateral action.”
Gabbard has also spoken at length on Syria. , she returned early to Washington to participate in the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing where Secretary Kerry testified.
Because of her national profile as a war veteran, Gabbard’s name was mentioned by several national publications as one of the key “undecided” votes in the House. , the congresswoman concluded that a Syria attack would be “a serious mistake” 鈥 something she expanded on for The Huffington Post.
Rep. Hanabusa interview with KHON, Fox News rooftop in Washington, D.C.
Schatz, by contrast, has gone quiet on Syria since he announced that he opposes military strikes . On Wednesday afternoon a look at his , his , his Twitter accounts (@brianschatz and @SenBrianSchatz) and his political and Senate Facebook accounts showed little about Syria, save for repeating what he said on Sept. 5.
That post on had 47 likes, including from his deputy chief of staff, Malia Paul, and his close aide, Charles Freedman.
Doing Something
Gabbard began her HuffPost piece by stating, “War is hell. But, as a soldier and combat veteran, I know it is sometimes necessary.”
It’s something Obama said in his Nobel acceptance speech in Olso. It’s what he told the world Tuesday night. Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi 鈥 one of the most liberal members of Congress 鈥 agrees that the country to the use of weapons of mass destruction in Syria, though a majority of her party members feel differently.
Personally, I am conflicted over what to do. There is no doubt that there is already a war in Syria and people are already dying horrific deaths. Can the U.S. improve the situation by firing missiles at people who might be responsible for using weapons that the world has almost uniformly agreed not to use? If the U.S. doesn鈥檛 act, could inaction be interpreted as a carte blanche for the people who allegedly used chemical weapons to use them again? Can diplomacy really convince Assad to give up his weapons?
I don鈥檛 know the answers to these questions. But I do admire and respect our leaders for struggling to come up with a thoughtful response.
And, if the Russian effort collapses, if other Syrian government atrocities surface, and if Congress or the United Nations takes up a vote authorizing some sort of response, our representatives in Washington may have to reconsider their views.
If so, Mazie Hirono’s decision to keep her options open may prove wise.
