It is not our Policy Position to respond to this through regime change. We will take an appropriate response, and we are evaluating, the president and his team are evaluating the options available to them. And the president will make an assessment and an announcement in due time. Defense secretary chuck hagel made clear that u. S. Military forces are ready. Suffice to say the options are there, the United States department of defense is ready to carry out those options. If that would occur, that would occur also in coordination with our international partners. But youre ready to go like that . Were ready to go like that. Meanwhile, closest allies are lining up in agreement. British Prime MinisterDavid Cameron. Now, of course, any action we take, or others take, would have to be legal, would have to be
that could be used to deliver Chemical Weapons such as airplanes, artillery rockets, and no apparent serious regime targets are included in that risks and they believe the strikes could take maybe two to three days to hit all targets they want. Congressional reaction has been cautious and muddled, while senator chris murphy said on our show last night the president should come to congress here for a vote. Theres hardly, of course, consensus on that point. Of course, congress is out of session. Today congressman steve cohen suggested President Obama wait until Congress Returns on september 9th. Then congressman cohen all but dismissed that idea. I think we could wait until September The 9th or thereabouts to take action. In many ways, i defer to the president s prerogative and trust the president to do whats right. Joining me now, congressman elliot engel, democrat from new york, Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs committee and has been an advocate of the u. S. Intervention in syria. Congressman, as best as you can articulate, as someone who i understand supports increased u. S. Intervention and Military Strike here, can you explain to me and our viewers what the Concrete Mission here, what the concrete goal is of any kind of Military Action . Well, i assume the concrete goal, of course, it hasnt been decided to do this. If seems imminent. But i think the goal would be to say to assad and other assads of the world that crimes of this violent nature cannot go unpunished. If we stand by and watch the murder of innocent men, women and children, children gasping for breath and foaming at the mouth and dont take action, i think it encourages other bad players to do the same thing. So i think at the very least, its saying that youve gone too far, and were going to make it hard for you to use your air
it. Its not with the gassing of innocent children. Let me just say, i mean, i share your and i think any decent persons horror at the images weve seen of children being gassed. Absolutely, complete total moral revulsion. It is evil, unquestionably. What, to you, is the principle that separates the death of those innocent children from the 100,000 Civilian Dead who come before the Chemical Weapon strike . What is it about that strike that puts it on different terrain than the routine horrific slaughter of innocents that weve seen duration of this civil war . Well, assad in my estimation has been slaughtering his people from the start of this war. This is not something new, but the Chemical Weapons, the use of chemicals is new. And i think that that is just horrific. All deaths are bad. War is bad. But when you turn gas on to your own people, i think thats just going a bit far. And i think the world has a
right to express its revulsion. I liken whats happening in syria today to 1999 in kosovo. There you had an end dangered population which was being murdered by its own government, and nato intervened with strikes, air strikes, and turned things around. I think you have an endangered population now, and i think assad needs to know that there is a line that he cannot cross, and i think the west is going to show him that line. Now, its not just the United States. Its our nato allies. The arab league today seemed to agree. And i just think that they seemed to agree the Chemical Weapons were used by the assad regime but did quite pointedly stop short. In the past, in libya, they explicitly endorsed the u. N. And allied bombing there. Congressman eliot engel, tm from new york. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you, chris. Joining me now, julia ioffe, Senior Editor at the new republic covering this story. Had a great writeup today about the thinking in the white house. What struck me here is theres this bizarre kind of Goldilocks Evaluation being done about what this response looks like, not too strong to tip the balance of the civil war, but not too weak so that it actually means something to assad. What is the thinking about the calculation of what this strike should look like inside the white house . Well, i think, you know, its as was once joked, obama is between a rock and a hard place. Hes very much haunted by the mistakes of the Previous Administration that rushed into two wars that have really tired out the country and emptied our coffers. Hes not rushing to get into a new one. I think the fact that, for example, that Secretary Of State john kerry spoke first, but We Havent Heard from President Obama yet, is significant. I think hes taking his time, but he also wants to show that he will do something, but it
doesnt really make sense. You cant really take the Chemical Weapons attack out of context here. I mean, it is part of this whole war. So, you know, however many people died in this attack, but as you said yourself, 100,000 people died before using conventional weapons. Heres one of the things that came across in what you wrote and reported today is that even though the specific responses to a Chemical Weapons attack, even though Prime MinisterDavid Cameron says the goal has to be to deter the possibility of Chemical Weapons attacks. Its essentially impossible for us to strike any Chemical Weapons stashes for the risk of making things worse by blowing up a whole bunch of nerve agents that you then send spiraling into the air. Well, its not just that, you destroy the depots and then people can come in and lute them. The containers that arent exploded. That is really a surefire way to set these things loose on the world. You dont know where theyll go after that. But in terms of, you know, setting up a sense of
consequence, okay, well hit him in a few places, we wont hit him too hard so it will be a slap on the wrist so hell know he can use Chemical Weapons on a smaller scale, because we havent punished that before. It doesnt i understand the impulse not to get involved in a another war in the middle east. We have egypt next door spiraling out of control. Syria has been a mess for three years. But at this point, you either i feel like you have to do everything or it doesnt make sense to just hit him a little bit. Julia ioffe from the new republic. Thank you so much. Joining us now, advocacy and director of middle east of Human Rights Watch. Shes a native of syria. The head of human rights, kenneth roth, ive been following him on twitter, he has been incredibly strong in condemnations of the behavior of the assad regime, particularly as it pertains to the use of Chemical Weapons, Indiscriminate Slaughter of civilians. Whats your feeling about the
imminence of this Military Strike justified quite explicitly on humanitarian grounds as a way of enforcing an International Norm human rights and i believe in, which is the prohibition of kChemical Weapon. For us as Human Rights Watch, you do not gas your own people like you just said and everyones saying. Then the effects of this attack will be judged by the sequence of such horrific attacks. We will only be able to judge whether this was successful if we see a real halt to the atrocities conducted over the past tsh. What is your calculation about whether we have either the Military Capability or the will to do that or whether we can do that in this way being described now theres this single surgical moment of punishment that enforces the norm and then we stop. Then we just let them get back
to the civil war. Its a very complex situation thats witnessed so many abuses. This is not the first abuse Human Rights Watch has documented. Been going on and on including the use of missiles and many kinds of arms that cannot distinguish between civilians and competence, anyway. Now, what will come out of this particular attack if it happens is just speculation today. Okay, but that is exactly the speculation that anyone engaged in this policy has to deal with. What do you say to the congressman, congressman eliot engel who makes the argument those in support of intervention have made, been making a while now, which is the world Cannot Sit Idly by and watch such atrocities . As someone from Human Rights Watch, how do you respond to that . We have not advocating for or against the intervention. If the intervention really is to happen, which is looks like it will, then for us, all must respect the law forward. They should not target civilians, they should not use weapons that are prohibited. They should not give either par parties to this conflict,