海角大神

The resolution authorizing the use of force in Syria that Congress is expected to vote on sometime next week will no doubt undergo numerous tweaks and revisions, but the draft offered by the White House is so far failing the Goldilocks test.

Some members of Congress say what they鈥檝e seen is too hard, others say it鈥檚 too soft. Unfazed, President Obama says he鈥檚 confident that by the end of a week or so of debate, the administration and the Congress will have come up with wording that is just right.

Speaking at the White House Tuesday as he met with Congressional leaders from both major parties, Mr. Obama said he welcomes the participation of Congress in fashioning a resolution on the use of force that both sends a 鈥渃lear message鈥� to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and sets back his ability to use chemical weapons again.

Obama says he鈥檚 confident Congress is 鈥済oing to be able to come up with something that hits that mark.鈥�

The draft resolution the White House sent to Congress Saturday didn鈥檛 seem to be to almost anyone鈥檚 liking. Hawks said it was little more than a slap on the wrist to Mr. Assad and might be worse than doing nothing. More dovish critics said the proposed resolution was woefully open-ended and amounted to a slippery slope to deeper US involvement in Syria.

Given those two opposing perspectives, will it indeed be possible to find wording that is just right?

As proposed, the resolution states the following:

鈥淭he President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in Syria.鈥�

The draft then specifies the two goals of the authorized use of force:

One is to 鈥減revent or deter the use or proliferation 鈥� within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction.鈥�

The second is to 鈥減rotect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons鈥澛�

For the 鈥渢oo hard鈥� camp, the resolution will have to include some limits on how the president is authorized to use force before they will go along.

Calling the draft resolution 鈥渢oo broadly drafted鈥� and a 鈥渂lank check鈥� for presidential use of military force, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, lists ways the resolution could be tightened to assuage his concerns.

One would be to explicitly rule out any American 鈥渂oots on the ground鈥� in Syria. Another would be to give any use-of-force authorization an expiration date.

The 鈥渢oo hard鈥� camp may also conclude that protecting US 鈥渁llies and partners鈥� from 鈥渢he threat posed by鈥� WMDs may sound right, but in practice is very open-ended.

But one challenge in revising the draft resolution will be how to include such checks even while addressing the concerns of the 鈥渢oo soft鈥� camp.

Several hawkish senators, including Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, say the resolution will only be worthwhile if it triggers more robust US assistance to Syria鈥檚 moderate armed opposition, and steps to degrade the upper hand Assad currently enjoys in his fight with a militarily unequal opposition.

Senators Graham and McCain indicated tentative support for a resolution based on their meeting at the White House Monday. 鈥淚 left the meeting feeling better than I felt before about what happens the day after, and that the purpose of the attack is going to be a little more robust than I thought,鈥� Graham said, speaking with reporters afterwards.

McCain said that 鈥渢he devil is in the details,鈥� and spoke of arming the rebels with more powerful weapons and other steps to 鈥渄egrade鈥� Assad鈥檚 advantages over the opposition, such as its heavy artillery and air force.

But he did not specify if the details he seeks would have to be included in a resolution, or if administration assurances of what the authorized use of force would aim to do would be enough.

Aides with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which planned to hold a hearing Tuesday afternoon on the authorization of use of force, say they will get to work immediately on revisions to the resolution to make it more acceptable to more members.

But even as debate on the resolution proceeds, some analysts say Congress has to realize that there will be nothing narrow about authorizing the use of force in the case of Syria, even if wording seems air-tight about limiting the objective to Assad鈥檚 use of chemical weapons.

鈥淭o limit it to deterring the use of chemical weapons sounds narrow enough,鈥� says Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Arlington, Va. 鈥淏ut operationally, in order to do that you basically have to take on the regime,鈥� he adds.

So the White House will have to answer the question: Is this resolution really about regime change (as some hawks would really like it to be) or isn鈥檛 it?