A Senate panel has approved the use of military force in Syria, in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack.
By 10-7, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations moved the measure to a full Senate vote, expected next week. The vote comes as President Barack Obama tries to build support in the US for punitive military action against the Syrian government. The much-debated measure allows the use of limited military force in Syria for 90 days. It also prevents the use of US troops on the ground. Despite Wednesday's vote, the bill's fate in the wider Senate is still unclear. So far, only 21 senators have said they support or are likely to support the resolution, according to a tally by ABC News. Thirteen have said they oppose or are likely to oppose the resolution, while 66 votes are undecided or unknown. However, those numbers are expected to shift as the language in the resolution changes, the White House and their congressional allies apply pressure, and lawmakers hear from their constituents. Earlier in the day, France - whose government has strongly advocated intervention - held an extraordinary debate in the National Assembly, though MPs will not vote on the matter as the country's president can mobilise the military without their backing. The government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is accused of using chemical weapons against civilians on several occasions during the 30-month conflict, most recently on a large scale in an attack on 21 August on the outskirts of Damascus. The US has put the death toll from that incident at 1,429 - though other countries and organisations have given lower figures - and says all the evidence implicates government forces. During a press conference in Sweden on Wednesday, President Obama said the evidence gives him "high confidence that Assad carried this out". He said action must be taken to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again. Mr Obama said he believed the US Congress would approve intervention, but stressed that as commander-in-chief, he had the right to act in his country's national interest regardless.
 |
| On a visit to Sweden, US President Barack Obama continued to call for military action in Syria |
By 10-7, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations moved the measure to a full Senate vote, expected next week. The vote comes as President Barack Obama tries to build support in the US for punitive military action against the Syrian government. The much-debated measure allows the use of limited military force in Syria for 90 days. It also prevents the use of US troops on the ground. Despite Wednesday's vote, the bill's fate in the wider Senate is still unclear. So far, only 21 senators have said they support or are likely to support the resolution, according to a tally by ABC News. Thirteen have said they oppose or are likely to oppose the resolution, while 66 votes are undecided or unknown. However, those numbers are expected to shift as the language in the resolution changes, the White House and their congressional allies apply pressure, and lawmakers hear from their constituents. Earlier in the day, France - whose government has strongly advocated intervention - held an extraordinary debate in the National Assembly, though MPs will not vote on the matter as the country's president can mobilise the military without their backing. The government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is accused of using chemical weapons against civilians on several occasions during the 30-month conflict, most recently on a large scale in an attack on 21 August on the outskirts of Damascus. The US has put the death toll from that incident at 1,429 - though other countries and organisations have given lower figures - and says all the evidence implicates government forces. During a press conference in Sweden on Wednesday, President Obama said the evidence gives him "high confidence that Assad carried this out". He said action must be taken to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again. Mr Obama said he believed the US Congress would approve intervention, but stressed that as commander-in-chief, he had the right to act in his country's national interest regardless.
