N.M. lawmakers react to airstrike
From condemnation to support, most leaders call for congressional input on military decisions
President Donald Trump’s missile strikes on a Syrian airbase Thursday night, representing a dramatic escalation of American involvement in that country’s civil war, prompted New Mexico’s congressional delegation to insist that Trump seek the input of Congress before taking further military action.
Some Democrats decried the president’s inexperience and suggested the administration’s ultimate objectives in Syria were unclear. Democratic Sen. Tom Udall issued particularly stern comments about Trump’s maneuver, the first direct U.S. assault on the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Udall warned that America was moving rapidly toward another war and raised questions about Trump’s apparently shifting approach to military interventions abroad.
The U.S. airstrikes, launched in response to a Syrian government chemical attack that left dozens of civilians dead, “may or may not have an impact on Assad’s behavior, but the United States can’t afford another endless war and occupation in the Middle East,” Udall said in a statement Friday, adding that more American involvement in the “exceedingly complicated conflict may only make matters worse.”
“The American people should be very concerned that we are heading rapidly toward another war in the Middle East with no strategy, no clear time frame or cost, no clear winner — and no authorization from Congress,” Udall said.
Udall frequently has expressed concerns about U.S. involvement in Syria and the need for a new authorization for the use of military force. Such an authorization, enacted after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has been broadly interpreted by presidents of both parties.
In 2013, President Barack Obama requested congressional authorization of military force in Syria after chemical attacks were carried out in areas controlled by forces opposing the Syrian government. Udall was one of two Democrats in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to vote against it.
A spokeswoman said Friday that Udall voted no on the resolution because he opposed further involvement in Syria under the terms of Obama’s proposed authorization but believed then and now that such authorization is necessary if the U.S. is to wage war against Assad.
Sen. Martin Heinrich agreed, writing in a letter to Trump that “last night’s attack serves as another reminder of why your administration should submit a new [authorization] and Congress should fulfill its responsibility by replacing the decade-anda-half-old [authorization] with a more limited and up-to-date authorization.”
Heinrich expressed support for the airstrikes on the Shayrat air base, saying in a statement
that they “sent an important message to the world that the United States will not stand by when chemical weapons kill dozens of innocent people, including children.”
But he added that the Trump administration must have a strategy for Syria and that he opposed the introduction of “significant” ground troops in Syria.
“We cannot and should not become directly entangled in a civil war in the Middle East,” Heinrich said.
The state’s lone congressional Republican, Rep. Steve Pearce, also offered support for the airstrikes but echoed the state’s congressional Democrats in saying Trump should present to Congress “a defined path to victory” before any U.S. troops are committed to a military engagement in Syria.
“President Trump demonstrated through his actions that the United States will not stand back and watch in silence while crimes against humanity occur,” Pearce said in a statement. When Obama sought congressional approval for military action in Syria in 2013, Pearce commended the president for requesting congressional approval but said he believed “intervention in Syria is a wrong and costly course” and signaled he would vote no on the resolution.
Asked Friday if Rep. Pearce had changed his mind, a spokeswoman said in an email, “The targeted use of cruise missiles against Syria does not change Congressman Pearce’s belief that before U.S. troops are committed to engagement and action against forces in Syria, the commander in chief must provide Congress with a detailed path to success.”
Rep. Ben Ray Luján, the Democratic congressman for Northern New Mexico, called the Syrian use of chemical weapons a “despicable and heinous act,” but said Congress should have a role in any further military action.
Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham said the attacks against civilians were “war crimes that cannot go unanswered.”
“However, Americans deserve a plan of action, which means an immediate debate in Congress regarding the use of force,” added Lujan Grisham, a Democrat running for governor, in a statement. “We cannot allow an inexperienced and volatile president to act alone when the stakes are so high.”
Lujan Grisham called for a “comprehensive approach” to the violence and humanitarian crisis of the 6-year Syrian civil war, adding that Trump’s “illegal anti-refugee actions have only worsened the political crisis in Syria,” referring to the president’s executive orders that sought to bar Syrian refugees from entering the U.S.
The American people should be very concerned that we are heading rapidly toward another war in the Middle East with no strategy, no clear time frame or cost, no clear winner — and no authorization from Congress.”
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M.