Obama has little support in Hawaii for call to arms

There are four announced candidates for Hawaii’s urban Oahu congressional district, and there are four no votes for American military action in Syria.

An informal survey shows that City Councilmen Stanley Chang and Ikaika Anderson, state Sen. Will Espero and state Rep. Mark Takai all would not approve President Barack Obama’s congressional call for bombing or attacking Syria.

The four Democrats agree that use of chemical weapons is a threat that should be discouraged and condemned.

"I think that we can all agree that the use of chemical weapons is a heinous and criminal act," said Anderson.

"Chemical weapons so grossly violates international law that it must be punished," added Chang.

America should not go it alone, said Espero, who urges that "the international community must hold Assad accountable for using banned chemical weapons."

As late as Monday, three of Hawaii’s four-person congressional delegation have all said they would vote against Obama’s request for attacking Syria, with only U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono undecided.

On Monday, the president had 31 "yes" votes and 20 "no" votes in the Senate, with 49 undecided.

But in the House, Obama has little support for his call to arms. Already more than a majority of members, 232, say they will vote no.

Among the four candidates hoping to replace U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, who is challenging U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz for the Senate seat, just one has military experience: Takai.

"As a lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard and a veteran who served in the Middle East, I have seen first-hand how war truly affects our soldiers and their families," said Takai.

For the U.S. to take action, he said, first we would need "clearly stated objectives and a defined exit strategy. … We also need to know whether the plan includes the presence of American personnel with ‘boots on the ground.’"

Takai said his questions have not been answered and he would not vote to support the president.

The range of reasons for why we should not act includes Anderson’s strong doubts.

"I cannot confidently support intervening with Syria at this time — I just cannot see what we would accomplish."

Chang, meanwhile, stated that he would be "unwilling to risk American blood where there are no good guys in this war, where our exit strategy is so unclear."

Espero brought up the last-minute discussion of alternatives to military action.

"I am not in favor of a military strike. The idea to have Syria turn over control of its chemical stockpiles is a very good suggestion, which I support. It is a step in the right direction, and weakens the Syrian regime to a degree," Espero said.

Early Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry suggested that Syria could avoid an air attack by putting its chemical weapons under international control. Later in the day, leaders in Russia, a Syrian ally, and the U.S. called it a "potentially positive development."

Going it alone is still an option for Obama. In 1999, President Bill Clinton authorized air strikes in Kosovo. The U.S. House took votes on a declaration of war and an authorization for the use of military force — and rejected them both. Later, though, the House voted to fund the bombing.

———

Richard Borreca writes on politics on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays. Reach him at rborreca@staradvertiser.com.