This morning I listed three criteria the president had to meet in order to win my support for military action in Syria: 1) Commitment to removing Assad from power and replacing him with a non-al-Qaedist regime; 2) Having a plan and the commitment to follow through on it; and 3) An explanation for how military action will make a non-terrorist government in Syria more likely, rather than less. I had further stated that, as of the time I wrote the post, the president had not yet done any of these things.
Well, it’s still early, but I have seen the Senate draft resolution (via NBC News), and when I saw this requirement, I was crestfallen (emphasis added):
the use of military force is consistent with and furthers the goals of the United States strategy toward Syria, including achieving a negotiated political settlement to the conflict
Folks, a “negotiated political settlement” should not and cannot be the goal. The goal must be the replacement of the Assad regime with a non-al-Qaedist alternative.
If the authorization remains thus limited, I cannot support it. It fails the first of my three tests, and thus it fails all of them.
Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal