In 2015, after Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper announced his state would accept Syrian refugees, Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., called on the Obama administration to “develop a comprehensive strategy to address the developments in Syria and eradicate the threat of [the Islamic State] once and for all.”
In 2017, after the United States launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syria air base, Gardner responded by reiterating the need for a “well-thought-out plan supported by the international community that will lead to a solution in Syria.”
Last Friday, after President Trump authorized yet another strike on Syrian assets, Gardner said, “These latest actions need to be part of a comprehensive strategy that secure lasting peace in Syria.”
On Wednesday, the senator said “we don’t have a plan” in Syria.
“It’s clear to me that this was again an apparent one-off in retaliation for a heinous chemical attack,” the senator said in an interview with the Washington Examiner’s editorial board, adding sarcastically, “murdering people by other means is apparently still OK, and death by other factions is apparently OK.”
“We have no plan right now to go in and address that,” he added.
Pressed to clarify what he believes the United States should be doing differently in regards to Syria, the senator, who has a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the White House needs to focus on three specific issues.
“No. 1: There is no future for Bashar al-Assad, and what is that transition going to be and how is it supported by, particularly, our allies in the Middle East and our European allies. … We need to have a coordinated plan with our allies,” he said.
“Second,” Gardner added, “if the United States acts inappropriately in Syria, we could create a … opportunity and a sort of metamorphosis of whoever the next team shirt is in terrorism. And third, the Syrian people are, as I mentioned, still being slaughtered. And while these other two are being addressed, and while a peaceful Syria is transitioned to, how do we protect the people of Syria?”
Though his blunt assessment of the White House’s nonexistent plan for Syria feels new, his prescriptions for resolving the conflict are not. He has been saying essentially the same thing since 2015, and he acknowledges that.
“We need to have the administration come up with a plan that addresses what comes next in Syria, and they haven’t done that,” he told the Washington Examiner. “Our plan seems to be to react when there’s a chemical attack.”
That the White House responds now to chemical attacks in Syria may be the only new development in this matter since Gardner addressed the issue for the first time as a United States senator.
Asked what he plans to do should the White House go on with its failure to produce a coherent and prudent strategy for the war-torn country, Gardner told the Washington Examiner he would “continue to insist that the president come up with a plan, and do that at every opportunity and engage the new secretary of state in that plan.”
