In an op-ed published in USA TODAY, U.S. Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reaffirmed his opposition to military strikes in Syria and explained his vote against the authorization for use of force during the committee's consideration of the measure last week.
Here are some highlights. Read Udall's full op-ed here .
"...a limited U.S. strike is unlikely to eliminate chemical weapons or save lives, and it is a dangerous step for the region.
"...in punishing Syria for violating an international norm, we risk violating another international norm against the use of military force except in self-defense of a country or its allies, or when authorized by the United Nations. We aren't acting in self-defense, and we haven't exhausted our political, diplomatic and economic options.
"...the United States cannot afford to become embroiled in another Middle Eastern civil war. The Syrian rebels are infiltrated by extremists who could turn their weapons on us and our allies tomorrow."
"Though we must take a 'trust but verify' approach, Russia's call for an international team to secure Syrian chemical weapons could change the course in Syria. We are far more likely to prevent further chemical attacks by continuing to push for an international coalition against Assad than by retaliating unilaterally.
"The administration has not made a credible case for military strikes. Getting further involved in another Middle Eastern civil war is the wrong answer to this very grave situation."
Udall's op-ed was offered in response to a USA TODAY editorial also published today.
