As the debate over what to do about Syria continues, Russia has proposed a plan to take the country’s chemical weapons and put them under international control. Congressman Jon Runyan (R-3) said the Russian plan is one of the ways to halt the Assad regime from using chemical weapons in the future. If he had to vote today to authorize President Barack Obama to use military force, Runyan told NJ Today Managing Editor Mike Schneider he would vote no.
Runyan said he currently can’t support a resolution for the U.S. to strike Syria because he hasn’t heard what the next step after a strike would be. “As Assad feels threatened by this and feels that what he’s doing is at stake, does he move forward and continue to do this stuff? And I haven’t heard a plan on how to move forward if that happens,” he said.
While Runyan said he believes chemical weapons were used in Syria, he can’t say with 100 percent certainty who used them. “I think there’s doubt in everybody’s mind including the intelligence community on this fact because again, you haven’t had anybody come out and say, ‘Here are the facts.’ It’s just not there,” he said.
Runyan said he doesn’t believe any country has the capability to deal with the possible ramifications if the Assad regime continues using chemical weapons. “I know as we sit here right now and what we’ve been through and the cuts to our military, our defense and the wear and tear we’ve put on our troops. Obviously the president has come out and said no boots on the ground, but you have to think long term. I’d put it this way. If you get into something like that and I’ll put it simply, if you’re gonna pick a fight with somebody, you better be willing to finish it. I don’t see a plan moving in that direction,” he said.
Some have said doing nothing would weaken the United States’ credibility and image. “There’s cases of that all over the world and it’s happened, whether it’s in Iraq. Look at the stuff going on in the Congo. No one’s up and outraged about that right now. All of it’s on Syria,” Runyan said. “This is not setting a precedent.”