xml:space="preserve">

With both Democrats and Republicans in Washington hesitant to support a military strike on Syria for allegedly using chemical warfare, Carroll's congressmen have a mixed approach on a future strike.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-District 8, said he believed the draft resolution requested by President Barack Obama was "too broad and loosely written."
"It would allow for a large scale military intervention in Syria. I think a large scale military intervention in Syria would be a mistake," he said in an interview.
Van Hollen partnered with Virginia Democrat Rep. Gerald E. Connolly to narrow a resolution for a strike. The strike would have four requirements: no ground troops would be deployed, it would limit the round of strikes, set a time frame of 60 days and define that the goal of the operation would be solely to limit the use of chemical warfare.
Van Hollen said the use of chemical weapons is a "gross violation of the international ban against the use of poison gas," and that if nothing is done, it will encourage Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad to use chemical warfare on his people again. It could also encourage future countries to use chemical warfare, he said.
His opinion mirrors that of the Secretary of State, John Kerry, who has appealed to both the Senate and House Foreign Affairs Committee about why the United States should intervene in Syria for a limited strike.
Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution 10-7 to authorize air strikes against Syria for 60 days, with the possibility of an additional 30-day extension. Ground forces in Syria are prohibited under the measure.
The measure has both bipartisan support, such as Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and bipartisan skepticism, with both Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. and Sen. Tom Udal, D-N.M., voting against it.
Next, the resolution goes to a full Senate vote while the House works on its own resolution.
Rep. Andy Harris, R-District 1, who did not want to comment on Syria beyond a prepared statement, has said that he leans toward saying no to a military strike on Syria.
"Although at this point I would not vote for military intervention, I plan to examine all of the evidence before making a decision," Harris wrote in a prepared statement.
Harris tweeted about the deluge of calls, emails and letters he's received from constituents urging against intervention in Syria.
Matt Sauvage, a media representative for Harris, said as of Thursday at 5 p.m., the office had received 819 responses from constituents against authorization, and 12 in favor of it.
Each will be receiving a response, Sauvage said.
Van Hollen said his constituents have had a wide range of views, but mostly support the idea of narrowing the duration and purpose.
Harris did not want to comment on any possible resolutions that are being floated, such as Van Hollen's.
"He will be making a statement later on the topic once he studies the issue more," Sauvage said. "Until that time comes, he won't be saying anything further."

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement