Syria a Hard -- But Perhaps Not Impossible -- Nut to Crack

When it comes to Syria and the Arab Spring, the common argument I hear in the Washington these days is that the United States has no leverage with Damascus and, thus, there is not a whole lot the U.S. government can do to squeeze dictator Bashar al-Assad, at least not hard enough to force his exit.

Syrian dissident's Ausama Monajed's op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday challenges that assumption. While he obviously has an agenda, Monajed also highlights some interesting potential pressure points with the Assad regime. And he points out how the Obama administration might now be able to capitalize on some of the networks the U.S. has established in Syria in recent years as part of international efforts to isolate Assad and his cronies.

Over the past decade, U.S. envoys to the Middle East have established significant relations with members of the Syrian regime, particularly intelligence officers. The West should quietly make it known that in exchange for documented information that could result in International Criminal Court indictments, amnesty and political asylum will be granted to high-level informants — a desirable offer for those at the highest echelons who realize how shaky the regime is.

That and other suggestions Monajed offers are food for thought. And they might also provide a ready rebuttal for the calls from some on Capitol Hill to recall the U.S. ambassador to Syria -- Robert Ford -- who just arrived there last year.

Making News on CSPAN with Congressman Adam Smith

I interviewed Congressman Adam Smith, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services, for CSPAN's Newsmakers program, which aired Sunday.

He had just come off the floor from Friday's series of votes on Libya, which settled, well, nothing in the months-long debate in Congress over the conflict.

I thought it was interesting that Smith didn't think this would be the end for the House face-off on the U.S. role in NATO-led mission.

The subject is certainly going to be a hot topic in the Senate (CQ, $$) this coming week, with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee slated to hold a hearing on Libya Tuesday morning, and a mark-up of the resolution authorizing the use of American force that afternoon.

Resolutions Could Resolve Libya War Powers Face-Off, For Now ...

Congress' months-long feud with the White House on Libya is likely to come to a head later this week.

Votes coming up in the House and possibly Senate ($$) will weigh in, finally, on whether or not to authorize the use of force in Libya. But they are unlikely to do much to settle the age-old dispute about how much Capitol Hill should be able to influence decisions to go to war (or "hostilities" or "kinetic military action" or whatever the kids are calling it these days).

Last week, the White House tried to argue that military operations in Libya were not "hostilities" of the sort that would trigger the 1973 War Powers Act, a line of reasoning House Speaker John Boehner's staff called "creative," at best. Boehner introduced two measures Tuesday - one that would authorize the mission and one that would in effect de-authorize it, calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Libya.

Leading Senators, however, are pushing for a vote authorizing limited military engagement, and they have an impressive bipartisan roster of support for their effort. So it seems the worst Congress will do is send a mixed message on Libya -- certainly not helpful for Obama politically or for international PR on the coalition efforts in Libya. But it's also not the sort of thing that's likely to force White House action, let alone any resolution over the battle between the branches on war powers.

Pakistan: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

The New York Times story on Pakistan's arrest of CIA informants who helped spy on Bin Laden in his final days in Abbotabad is just the latest of what seems like a revelation-a-week that is roiling our relations with Islamabad.

I went on Fox 5 (DC's local Fox affiliate) Thursday morning to talk about the reaction in Washington to that development and the broader outlook for U.S.-Pakistan ties going forward.

Capitol Hill Wants to Cash Out on COIN?

The Washington Post ran a story on Sunday's front page entitled, Lawmakers Push for a New Afghan Strategy.

It's something I wrote about last week ($$) -- the consensus that is building among senators that regardless of the initial size of the troop draw down come July, President Obama and Co. need to come up with a sharp shift in strategy that entails a far smaller footprint in Afghanistan.

It's not just the usual suspects, either. While the liberal and conservative wings of both parties have their issues ($$) with the war, some of the strongest calls for a change of course are coming from the middle -- folks like Richard Lugar, R-Ind., Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Jim Webb, D-Va.

Coming on the heels of an extensively researched report from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee majority staff, which raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of aid work in conflict zones, the critiques during last week's Senate hearings seem to point to a hardening on Capitol Hill against the whole concept of COIN -- the counterinsurgency strategy the military is employing in Afghanistan, with Obama's blessing.

Libya Rancor Lives on on Capitol Hill

Just when D.C. thought it was safe to ignore Libya, divisions between Congress and the White House over strategy and debate over which branch(es) of government has the power to wage war brought the conflict back to the forefront this week.

I generally try to avoid parroting conventional wisdom. But in this case I was among those who reported ($$) -- as many on Capitol Hill believed -- that Rep. Dennis Kucinich's resolution demanding the withdrawal of troops from Libya was not expected to pass.

Clearly, that's what the House leadership anticipated when they scheduled a vote on the resolution Wednesday. The blowback they received from the rank-and-file sent both them and the White House scrambling to avoid a major legislative and political snafu. Ultimately they delayed the vote ($$), but if we've learned anything, it's that lawmaker discontent on Libya is not likely to die a quiet death.

UPDATE - 6/4:
With the delay, Speaker John Boehner and the House GOP leadership bought time to create a more palatable alternative -- a non-binding resolution requiring the president to justify to Congress the U.S. military's ongoing role in Libya.  Boehner and other Republicans say there will be consequences if the president does not satisfy Congress' outstanding questions and concerns, but it's hard to see the leadership allowing members to cut off funding for the troops flying sorties over Tripoli.

Declarations about the War Powers Act and the separation of powers can make for compelling political theater, but holding up the cash flow for the mission is the only real tangible way Congress can head off Obama's Libya gambit.