Peter Feaver:
This is a move borne out of weakness.
Going to Congress could have been a sign of strength if it had been done last week, before all of the signaling from the White House of an imminent attack. But aides are not even trying to spin this as a sign of presidential resolve. Instead, their own backgrounders describe it as borne partly out of political weakness, as the president stumbled on his march to war over the past week, and partly out of political pique at congressional critics. As an aide put it, “We don’t want them [Members of Congress] to have their cake and eat it, too.”
Given the predicament the administration’s own rhetoric put Obama in, the congressional authorization gambit may be the most tactically shrewd move left to the president. But it could still backfire in ways that hurt both Obama and the country.
It might be tactically shrewd if Obama wins a decisive vote of confidence, say, something that eclipses the strong bipartisan majority that endorsed President George W. Bush’s confrontation with Iraq (77-23 votes in the Senate, 296-133 votes in the House). That vote did provide political momentum for the Iraq war and did implicate Democrats in the Iraq policy. Let us not forget that that vote is why we have a President Obama and did not have a President Kerry, nor a President Biden, nor a President Hillary Clinton.
But I doubt that Obama will get such a strong political victory. His team has a very poor track record of building bipartisan coalitions on foreign policy and the last two weeks of policy incoherence have not given them any momentum. Moreover, Obama will likely struggle to hold his left wing base, while isolationist sentiments will dampen Republican support. Does Obama have the votes to override, say, a Senator Paul filibuster? Can Obama whip enough of the far left Democrats to compensate for lost votes on the right? And look for all those nay-voters to use talking points drafted from President Obama’s and his advisor’s own statements over the past two years defending their hitherto policy of staying out of Syria.
On the other hand, it might be tactically shrewd if, having crashed into the Syrian iceberg, the president wants simply to take down some Republicans with him as his policy Titanic sinks below the waves. If the Republicans vote down the Syrian bill Obama can forgo the strikes (the preference he signals, wittingly or not, almost every time he speaks on the issue) and blame Republicans for it. Judging from what the leaky White House was saying about the president’s abrupt reversal, this might be the core objective right now.
Yet none of these tactical gains will overcome the president’s biggest problem: he has no viable strategy for Syria or for the larger region.
Let’s go back in time:
(1) As a senator, he saluted like the British do, with his palm out.
(2) As president, he didn’t know how to pronounce, “Navy corpsman” properly.
(3) He wouldn’t wear the American flag pin when running for president.
(4) As president he has sided with Muslim nations more often than our friendly nations.
Is this the guy we want in charge of our military?
If congress approves us going in to Syria, and it fails, at least we won’t hear obama say, “It’s Bush’s fault.” We will hear, “It’s congress’s fault.”
@Smorgasbord:
I agree, we will hear the Obama administration say that, but it would be wrong. If Obama get’s the approval from Congress and it fails, it further show his complete incompetence as CiC.
At this point, no matter what happens Obama has shown himself to be a rank amateur when it comes to international intrigue. That’s the problem with most of his administration of sophisticate sycophants with little or no actual field experience.
@Ditto:
I would tweak your statement to say that when you intrinsically believe that reality can be shaped to rainbows and unicorns just because you stomp your feet and shriek, “But mommy, I WAAAAAAANNT it that way!” You will end up with the likes of the current administration.
There’s a congressman who Tweeted something about how weird it is to feel he must thank Obama for doing something Obama is Constitutionally REQUIRED to do.
After all we have not been attacked so we are not simply responding to a war we are already in, so Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution applied. And it that grants Congress the sole power “to declare war.”
Now, is all this simply more diversion?
There are new revelations about the IRS misusing their office in favor of illegals.
There is a move to use his EPA to tax our carbon use.
There is ObamaCare coming online (badly) in the next 20 days.
There is a budget battle Obama wants the upper hand in as he insists on raising taxes substantially.
Killing 1400 in a few days is par for Assad’s course in Syria.
When did Obama get on this particular high horse?
Assad had used chemicals on his people between 9 and 15 times before this last attack….but the timing didn’t help Obama like it does right now.
Even with this ” Just War Doctrine,” there are three “just causes” for war: repel an attack, retake what was unjustly taken, or go to the defense of the victim of an unjust attack.
Just War Doctrine does not recognize any “responsibility to protect.”
That third “just cause” means you may go to war, not that you must.
The Doctrine does not impose on anyone the requirement to go to war.
There are seven other requirements of the Doctrine.
Our men and women in Congress must examine Obama’s idea about going to war in the light of all of them, too.
And, when they do, they will see we have no good reason to attack Syria.
@Nan G, the only “justification” I believe that Congress may seize upon is the Chemical Weapon Convention agreement, signed and ratified by the US in the late 90s. However there is a protocol to redress violations in there, and it involves dealing with the other signatory States (which doesn’t include Egypt, Syria or Israel as of this point) under the UNSC umbrella. Congress may vote for an AUMF using this convention as a reason, but it still doesn’t preclude pulling in other nations in the negotiations for what to do, when considering the int’l Conventions protocol.
The problem I see is that the GOP is on board for an attack, but for them it’s not enough to do a “shot over the bow”. They prefer to go for the regime change. So I believe the debate will be less about whether we should go in there (save for some), but the ultimate objective when doing so. It’s still a major error.
Just today Assad’s spokesperson said that, they would go after Israel in a big way IF the US attacks them in anything other than a pinprick.
I don’t know where that fits in people’s calculus, but I bet Israel is very interested in finding out what Obama meant when his request was for a very wide right to wage war.
It is absolutely intolerable that chemical weapons were used, I think that we all agree on that. What has not been determined is WHO used the chemical weapons. Until the world learns Who is responsible for the chemical weapons attack, there isn’t a clear understanding on who needs to be punished. Nor is a limited sucker punch on Assad appropriate or sufficient IF HE was the one who ordered the use of Chemical weapons on his own people.
That he is waging war on his own people against insurgency does not of itself warrant the US getting involved in the Syrian uncivil war. That Assad is a ruthless head of state that subjects his people to gross abuses and subjects them to live in terrible conditions (including starvation), enforced by his regime is not sufficient, other wise we would have been at war with Ethiopia decades ago. If we were to go to war with every nation that treats their people horrendously, we would be at war perpetually.
There simply isn’t enough Intel as of yet to warrant our getting involved, other than to push for a UN investigation and to provide humanitarian aid. We have no skin in this game. No Americans were attacked, no Americans ship or embassy was assaulted. I don’t give a rat’s patootie if it shows Obama to be the foolish incompetent CiC and foreign relations amateur that the world already knows him to be. He painted himself in this corner with his rhetoric, at the objections of conservatives and Republicans. We are not required to approve of Obama committing an action of war, simply for him to save face.