Kilmer, Murray on Syria

With Syria within sharp focus, Kitsap’s representatives in Congress remain undecided on whether they should vote to support U.S. military action in Syria.

In an email U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer sent out on Friday he tells constituents that he has not yet decided which way he would vote, what he is against and what questions he wants answered before he decides. The entire letter follows, but the main bullet points are that:

  • Kilmer does not support sending in troops;
    He does not support starting something that will create a larger regional fight;
    He does not support empowering extremists;
    Kilmer wants to know what success looks like;
    He wants to know what the effect will be in the short, medium and long terms;
    He wants to know what the price of inaction is.
  • Kilmer asked for your feedback and receives email at or you may call any of his offices.

    Sen. Patty Murray’s statement, in which she also says she is undecided, follows Kilmer’s and her contact page is at

    I don’t see an official statement from Cantwell, but news reports show her as undecided.

    The full statements follow.

    From Kilmer:

    September 6, 2013


    I try to send my e-newsletters every two weeks so as not to spam you. But with the urgent discussion regarding potential U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict, I felt it important to share my thoughts with you today and to ask you to send me yours.

    There is no question that the ongoing conflict in Syria has become a major humanitarian crisis and a cause of significant regional instability. This conflict, which started more than two years ago when protests against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad turned violent, has gone from bad to worse. In fact, more than 100,000 Syrians have died and more than two million have been displaced and now live in refugee camps in countries like Jordan and Turkey.

    In the midst of this terrible conflict, there is strong evidence from intelligence reports (from our country as well as reports from France and the United Kingdom) that the Assad regime recently used chemical weapons, brutally murdering over 1,400 Syrians – including 400 children – and having long-lasting negative impacts on surviving civilians.

    In response, President Obama has proposed a limited military strike against the Syrian government. Appropriately, President Obama has asked for Congressional authorization to take action. I have already participated in two briefings and will in the days ahead continue to seek out opportunities to review classified information concerning the attacks and the proposed response.

    I have not decided yet how I will vote regarding whether or not to authorize the use of military force. I am still reviewing the intelligence and analysis surrounding the proposed military response. And I’m actively listening to the people I represent.

    These are among the most difficult decisions our nation faces and I believe it is appropriate and necessary that we have a full debate over what action, if any, will be in the best interest of our nation. That said, I’d like to briefly share with you some of my initial thoughts.

    Let me start by saying what I do not support: I do not support sending American troops into Syria. Having just returned from Afghanistan I’m more mindful than ever of the extraordinary sacrifices that have already been made by our service members. And I return with very little appetite for seeing our nation getting entrenched in another Middle Eastern conflict.

    In addition, I do not support taking action that would start a larger regional conflict. And I do not support empowering extremist factions that may one day take up arms against the United States or our allies.

    In the days ahead, I want to do everything I can to understand the answers to some key questions and key considerations that I am weighing.

    First of all, I want to understand what success looks like and how any military action would promote America’s interests in the region and around the world.

    What will be the impact of the strike in the short, medium, and long-term? Will military action degrade the Assad regime’s capacity to use chemical weapons? In what ways do we expect military action to affect our allies in the region?

    Moreover, I want to be sure we understand the implications of choosing not to act. By waging chemical warfare against his own people, it is clear that Assad is openly defying the global community’s long-standing opposition to these deadly weapons. Assad now joins Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein as tyrants who have used chemical weapons during war. What message is sent to Assad – and to other leaders with bad intentions toward America and its allies – if they believe they can use chemical weapons without consequence?

    Finally, what role will the rest of the international community play to deter further use of chemical weapons?

    We need to be very careful about not being further drawn into a conflict that we have limited ability to resolve. While the U.S. is right to call for President Assad’s removal from office, we have to be mindful that U.S. military action alone will not solve this civil war. There must be a political solution between the regime’s supporters and opponents. The United States cannot impose that solution through military action.

    As I continue to review the president’s request, I would appreciate you sharing your views on this important issue. Please reply to this email or call any of my offices. Your thoughts matter a great deal to me.

    Thank you for reading. It is an honor to serve as your representative.


    From Patty Murray:

    Sep 04 2013

    “There is no decision more serious or impactful for our nation and the global community than authorizing the use of American military force. As the recent past reminds all of us, when making these decisions we must be exceedingly cautious because they hold the potential to entangle our nation in conflicts that can cost us dearly.

    “Therefore, in the days ahead, as the Congressional resolution authorizing military action continues to take shape, I will be carefully weighing all sides of the debate. The use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians – including children – in Syria is abhorrent and must end. However, responding to these attacks must be subject to a careful deliberation that considers both the lessons from mistakes that were made in Iraq and previous conflicts, and the realization that we are facing a unique situation in Syria.

    “One thing that I’m not willing to consider is committing US troops to fighting in Syria. Throughout the past decade, our military and their families have done everything we have asked of them and more, and putting ‘boots on the ground’ in Syria is something I join with the vast majority of Americans in opposing.

    “Before taking this difficult vote I will continue to participate in briefings and conversations with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with Administration officials. I am also eager to hear from Washington state families who have passionate and differing views on how we should proceed as a nation. I believe that having a thoughtful national conversation on such a consequential decision is the right path and something that we should never take for granted.”

    7 thoughts on “Kilmer, Murray on Syria

    1. Amazingly Kilmer can’t make up his mind yet. Is he waiting for polling data?

      It would be madness to attack Syria, even with Kerry’s itsy bitsy plan.

    2. Why didn’t this article ask about Cantwell? Or is it because we know how she’ll vote. She a sycophant to the DNC demands and thus vote to defend Obama’s actions regardless of end result.

    3. More political banter and blah, blah, blah from our elected officials in the other Washington. Kerry says we would not be at war. This is the same Vietnam vet John Kerry who stood next to Hanoi Jane protesting that war and is now cheerleading this one. I guess the definition of “war” is the perception of the purveyor. Here’s a clue: When you’re lobbing missiles into another country that’s war!! The use of chemical weapons by anybody and on children is sinful so let the good Lord be the judge and may they rest in hell for eternity. We’re not the world’s savior. Right now our enemies are killing our enemies so let them do it. However, if our enemies attack or take any offensive against our true allies then let there be war and we can then kill them all & let God sort them out!!

    4. I have already e-mailed the three of them via another petition page I get e-mails from, and I have really yet to see many responses from anyone in WA in favor of military action. The overwhelming majority of comments in the Facebook post Murray made the other day were against action.

      Hopefully the plan being drafted with the assistance of Russia will help put the kibosh on any missile strikes, unless the war hawks are determined to go to war come hell or high water.

    5. @randydutton,

      Cantwell is mentioned in this post, but she did not put out an official statement, which is all I referred to here. As mentioned in the post, based on news reports she also appears to be undecided.

      Steven Gardner
      Kitsap Caucus

    6. Why is it alright in America to see a foreign government use chemical warfare to murder their own innocent children and we do nothing?
      Sort of like the 1940s – we knew people were being tortured and murdered yet we didn’t want to get involved then either – until Pearl Harbor.
      Is Russia really America’s friend and we can trust their government?
      America is changing… Sharon

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

    Please enter the word MILK here: