Other parties including Senator Richard Lugar had proposed a U.S.-Russian-facilitated disarmament initiative prior to the announcement. On September 10, Syrian officials signaled their willingness "to disclose the locations of chemical weapons, to stop producing them, and to reveal these locations to representatives of Russia, other states, and the United Nations" with the goal of "ending our possession of all chemical weapons." Others reportedly are drafting proposals that would reflect the disarmament proposal under consideration and could seek to make an authorization for the use of U.S. military force contingent on the satisfaction of criteria related to the enforcement of a disarmament agreement. Assessment

The war in Syria and the debate over possible punitive U.S. military action against the Asad regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons pose a uniquely challenging series of questions for policy makers. A mass casualty chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21 was the latest and most deadly of a string of reported instances where Syrian forces allegedly have used chemical weapons despite President Obama's prior statement that the transfer or use of chemical weapons is "a red line" that would "change his calculus." The President and senior members of his Administration have argued that the United States has a national security interest in ensuring that "when countries break international norms on chemical weapons they are held accountable." By his own account, President Obama believes that extensive, sustained U.S. military intervention to shape the outcome of Syria's civil conflict is undesirable. Still other critics of the Administration, including some Members of Congress, charge that U.S. hesitation to intervene militarily to protect Syrian civilians and/or help oust the Asad government has unnecessarily prolonged the fighting. Sorting through these competing perspectives and prescriptions now falls to Members of Congress as they consider the President's proposed course of action, his request that Congress authorize the use of force, the feasibility of international disarmament proposals for Syria, and the future of U.S. policy with regard to the conflict in Syria and its regional consequences. The August 21 attack appears to have been part of a fierce and ongoing Syrian military bombardment of rebel-held eastern suburbs of Damascus. In statements reacting to alleged chemical weapons incidents in Syria, U.S. officials have referred to several distinct reasons why the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government raises fundamental concerns for the United States: 
the unacceptability of any use of chemical weapons, given the large international consensus that views chemical weapons as having inherently malicious qualities; the targeting of a civilian population, especially in large numbers, regardless of the weapons employed; the potential for the proliferation of chemical weapons to other parties, such as those hostile to the United States; and the potential ramifications of escalated or expanded violence in Syria, including the loss of control of chemical weapons and/or their use on neighboring countries and U.S. interests in the region. The United Nations Security Council may discuss proposals to accomplish this goal. What funding sources are available for U.S. military intervention in Syria? What would constitute failure and how might that affect U.S. objectives? What force might the Syrian government bring to bear to resist or respond to a military operation against it? How might opposition groups receiving U.S. support benefit or be put at risk by U.S. military operations? Is the U.S. military in a position to sustain military operations in the region? That is now known." China has consistently opposed outside military intervention in Syria in response to the August 21, 2013 chemical weapons attack.
Reports of a mass casualty chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus are reshaping the long-running and contentious debate over possible U.S. intervention in Syria's bloody civil war. Obama Administration officials and some foreign governments report that on August 21, 2013, forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al Asad attacked opposition-controlled areas in the suburbs of the capital with chemical weapons, killing hundreds of civilians, including women and children. The Syrian government has denied the accusations categorically and blames the opposition for the attack. United Nations inspectors who were in Syria to investigate other alleged chemical weapons attacks collected and are analyzing information related to the incident. Varying accounts suggest that several hundred to more than 1,000 people were killed from exposure to a poisonous gas, with symptoms consistent with exposure to the nerve agent sarin.
Possible punitive U.S. military action against the Asad regime is now the subject of intense debate, amid the broader ongoing discussion of U.S. policy toward the Syrian civil war and its regional consequences. The August 21 incident is the latest in a string of reported instances where Syrian forces appear to have used chemical weapons despite President Obama's prior statement that the transfer or use of chemical weapons is "a red line" that would "change his calculus." The President and senior members of his Administration have argued that the United States has a national security interest in ensuring that "when countries break international norms on chemical weapons they are held accountable." At the same time, President Obama still maintains that extensive, sustained U.S. military intervention to shape the outcome of Syria's civil conflict is undesirable. Prior to the August 21 incident, U.S. military leaders had outlined options to accomplish a range of U.S. objectives, while warning that U.S. military involvement "cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict."
Alternatives to military action also are under intense consideration. On September 10, Syrian officials responded to a Russian disarmament proposal by signaling their willingness "to disclose the locations of chemical weapons, to stop producing them, and to reveal these locations to representatives of Russia, other states, and the United Nations" with the goal of "ending our possession of all chemical weapons." Members of the United Nations Security Council began discussing proposals to implement an international framework for such a disarmament initiative.
Members of Congress have expressed a broad range of views on the question of an immediate U.S. military response and the proposed disarmament initiative. Some express support for military action and others express opposition or question how a military response would advance broader U.S. policy goals. Similarly, some Members seek to explore the potential of disarmament proposals and others warn that it may delay a forceful U.S. response or undermine U.S. policy with regard to Syria's civil war. For more than two years, many Members of Congress have debated the potential rewards and unintended consequences of deeper U.S. involvement in Syria. Some Members express concern that the Administration's policy of providing support to the fractured Syrian opposition could empower anti-American extremist groups, while others warn that failure to back moderate forces could prolong fighting and strengthen extremists.
As Members of Congress consider the merits of possible military intervention in Syria, they also are reengaging in long-standing discussions about the proper role for Congress in authorizing and funding U.S. military action abroad and the use of force in shaping global events or deterring dictatorships from committing atrocities. This report attempts to provide answers to a number of policy questions for lawmakers grappling with these short- and long-term issues.