Top senators were divided Thursday over whether President Trump already has the legal authority for a military strike on Syria or should seek an authorization from Congress.
Trump is weighing military options against the government of President Bashar Assad following a chemical weapon attack this week. Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both Republicans, said a U.S.-led coalition should ground the Syrian air force by shooting airplanes out of the sky and bombing airfields.
McCain said he believes Trump already has the authority to strike at Assad — a major change of course for a war targeting the Islamic State — but Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Trump needs to come to Congress for new legislation authorizing military operations.
“He has no authority to go into Syria against the Assad regime,” Cardin said.
A chemical attack in Idlib province this week killed dozens of civilians including children and shifted Trump’s feelings toward Assad, who has been accused of numerous atrocities while waging a five-year civil war.
On Wednesday, the president said the chemical attack was unacceptable and crossed “many, many lines.”
McCain said he spoke with Trump on Thursday about Syria and the need for action following the attack, but not about striking the Syrian air force specifically. Other members of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees said they had not been contacted by the White House about the issue.
McCain and Graham said they would be willing to help Trump build a bipartisan consensus in the Senate if the president decides to act.
In a joint statement, they said a U.S.-led coalition could ground the Syrian air force “quickly, precisely, decisively, and in ways that control escalation.”
But military intervention against Assad also risks riling Russia, which has deployed its military to prop up the regime and assist with the civil war. When asked how Russia might respond, McCain said, “I don’t give a damn.”
The current U.S-led war in Syria and Iraq is being waged under authorizations granted by Congress in 2001 and 2002 that focused on toppling Saddam Hussein and rooting out al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks.
Any intervention against Assad could test the elasticity of those aging authorizations, which have already been interpreted to cover the Islamic State and draw wide bipartisan calls from Congress for an update.
“If there is any contemplation about military action in Syria, the president would need to do what President Obama did and come to congress with it,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who has long advocated for an authorization for the use of military force.
However, Obama’s request failed and the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has expanded.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said it is “always better” for the White House and lawmakers to agree on a new AUMF before any new war.
However, presidents have authority for short-term military action, meaning Trump’s legal authority could depend on what type of mission is chosen.
“We’re looking at that right now,” Corker said. “I’m sure there’s no way the president anticipates a longer effort, but let’s wait and see what they propose.”
