N.C. Delegates Split on Decision to Strike Syria

For U.S. Force in Syria

Republican Senator Burr released a statement on Wednesday, August 28, before President Barack Obama gave a speech on the issue on Saturday, and before the U.S. Government declassified its intelligence assessment concerning the use of chemical weapons according to a WUNC news report. In the statement, Burr says that people should be outraged at the Syrian regime’s actions and endorses military action by the U.S. and NATO (excerpted):

It is time for the United States and our NATO allies to take necessary, punitive military action against the Syrian regime and send a clear signal to its leadership, and others in the region who may be contemplating using weapons of this nature, that there are consequences for these actions.

U.S. Senator Kay Hagan released the following statement immediately after President Obama’s decision to seek Congressional approval for military intervention in Syria:

“It is shocking and deplorable that the Assad regime would use chemical weapons on its own people, and the international community cannot allow this to happen without serious consequences. I believe seeking Congressional authority is the appropriate way forward. Without putting American troops on the ground, the atrocities in Syria require a strong response that will prevent them from happening again and ensure that Syria's chemical weapons stockpile does not fall into the hands of terrorists and further destabilize the Middle East.”

Against U.S. Force in Syria

Republican Congressman George Holding, who represents North Carolina’s 13th District and is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, released a statement on September 1. He said it is unclear how a ‘limited strike’ would deter the Assad regime and that Congress should debate the issue before he could cast his vote:

The decision to attack Syria boils down to a series of blunt questions: What abiding American interest makes an attack on another country unavoidable? Is there a justification for putting American lives in danger?  What are the consequences of an attack? We are now rightly going to debate these questions in Congress and, before I can consider voting for any military action, I am going to have to hear some convincing answers.”

Republican Representative Howard Coble of the sixth District released a statement September 3, preceding the House vote on the use of military action in Syria. He said he did not believe it was necessary for President Obama to seek Congressional approval and would vote against the use of military action (excerpted):

As of right now, I am leaning towards voting against the use of any American military assets against Syria for several reasons.  First, the costs of even a limited action will be enormous, and we cannot afford it… Second, it appears that if we pursue this course, we will be going it alone…. Third, it appears we will be a day late and dollar short in taking any meaningful action against the Assad regime. Unless I learn something that changes my mind during the resolution debate, I plan to vote against the measure. 

Congress is scheduled to reconvene after summer recess on Monday, Sept. 9.