Sometimes the right thing politically is also the right thing on the merits. In asking Congress for authorization to act against Syria, President Obama got it right all around.
President Obama stunned the world and paused his march to war on Saturday by asking Congress to give him authorization before he launches a limited military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.
In an afternoon appearance in the Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said he had decided that the United States should use force but would wait for a vote from lawmakers, who are not due to return to town until Sept. 9. Mr. Obama said he believed he had the authority to act on his own, but he did not say whether he would if Congress rejects his plan.
“I’m prepared to give that order,” Mr. Obama said. “But having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interest, I’m also mindful that I’m president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”
Going to war with the support of the people’s representatives, he added, “I know the country will be stronger.”
The president’s announcement effectively dared Congress to either stand by him or, as he put it, allow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to get away with murdering children. By asking lawmakers to weigh in, he is trying to break out of his box of isolation of the last week, in the face of deep skepticism at home and around the world about the strike. His decision indicates he does not want to go forward without Congress and the American public.
The NYT goes on to report that Obama’s action is “a major political gamble for a president with marginal command of Congress.” Certainly, it’s quite possible that the House won’t go along with Obama’s request. So be it. It’s still the right thing politically, and the right thing to do.
What support is the President receiving from the people of Syria? They have not risen up in the numbers indicative that they want Assad removed from office. Take the issue to the Hague where it belongs as a War Crime. Lives will be lost no matter what direction is taken and therefore the US should demonstrate what a civilized nation means. The people in Syria stood by as their leadership invaded Israel and Lebanon. With the latter they stayed uninvited for 30 years! They need to show a great deal more enthusiasm for our intervention than they have to date. Hasn’t Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, and Lebanon taught us anything. The only ones asking for outside help from that country will push Syria into a deeper abyss of misery.
This belong in the World Court and Obama’s “red line” statement seems to have boxed him in. So instead of punishing, say, the specific war criminals, we’re going to do some sort of military action — i.e., kill actual people — with who knows what result. A Syrian failed state? A theocracy? An excuse for Russian escalation? A message to the Syrian regime that they can survive the response to using chemical weapons? A Syrian retaliation aimed at Israel? A green light to others to replace international law with vigilante justice?
We can use both military and legal avenues like we did in the former Yugoslavia, and I believe we should.
Clinton should not have gone to war with Yugoslavia absent Congressional authorization. It was wrong then and the fact that Congress never took him to task for it doesn’t make it right or make it a precedent that other presidents should follow. Obama should absolutely not commit military action against Syria without Congress.
I have said I believe he should, and so should have Clinton, though I didn’t remember that he didn’t do that. So my comment above yours stands. We should use military and legal means with the support of Congress and the international community preferably. I for one hope that support is forthcoming.
When his allies in the Senate tried to get him authorization after the 60 day period under the WPA, he lost the support in the House and kept the hostilities going for another 18 days without authorization or consequences. it is time for Congress to do its job. It failed to do this with the Tonkin Resolution, which several luminaries in both parties called their worst votes, it failed to do this with respect to Lebanon, it failed to do this with respect to Iraq or Kosovo.
I might add, the last war we conclusively won, the first Persian Gulf War aka Desert Storm, had full UNSC approval, full support from over 100 coalition partners, firm Congressional authorization, and a limited mission (to expel Saddam from Kuwait) that was achieved magnificently. That is the standard. With not even the UK willing to back us, it’s really time to pause and reflect. Let Congress debate and vote, and for those of us supporting a more humble and sensible foreign policy, the kind we thought we were getting when we voted for Obama, let’s get our delegation in MA to vote against this proposal.
I think I found my candidate for 2016, his philosophy looks better and better.
I wonder if this is a sustainable model. Eventually it has to break down, I would think.
We stomped on an anthill known as Iraq and looked what happened.
That worked out so well in Afghanistan. None of our business, folks like you said. Thousands of Americans died.
Perhaps Santayana should have said “Those determined to be ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.”
When some Islamists get their hands on Syria’s chemical weapons and use them in an American subway, we can look forward to your post blaming “Daddy Obama”.
Non interventionism does not equal isolationism.
I won’t defend the Pauls, they have been quite inconsistent in their views depending on the politics. That said, I believe there are those on the libertarian right and those on the left who tend to be skeptical of military intervention. We are non-interventionists. We are not isolationists. I fully support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, membership in the United Nations, membership in the United Nations Security Council, world trade, foreign aid, and a robust and well maintained and funded State Department with full resources to conduct vital public diplomacy in the national interest.
None of those proposals are isolationists. Senator Robert A. Taft, who voted against Nuremberg, against NATO, against the UN, against the Marshall Plan, against the Truman Doctrine, and against most of the post WWII treaties and agreements we signed-he was an isolationist. But simply believing the best solution to pressing world problems is not always the Marines storming the beaches, does not make me an isolationist and I resent that epithet.
Obama should drop Larry Summers on Damascus.
He would solve two problems at once. First, Summers would represent “shock and awe” to the Syrians, and they would never again use chemical weapons.
Second, he could then be able to appoint Janet Yellen to the Fed, who really deserves the appointment.
take this position.
Not necessarily because of it’s the right thing to do politically (aka don’t disenfranchise Congress further, or ignore the will of the American people) but more importantly to comply with the Constitution as he alludes in the later part of this statement.
What we really need and want to know is WTF is meant by the ubiquitous “national security” phrase/defense/rationalization/justification/etc…..? Is it the same as the NSA spying on me and you for “national security” reasons? The FBI spying on a President for “national security” reasons?
Spell it out to the American people and by osmosis (hopefully) Congress will process it too.
I may be a little dense but was educated in Massachusetts schools and I get it that bad actions – and these are horrific, heinous actions, require consequences. What I have to wonder is how killing more people can possibly be the best response to genocide?
Is there intel that a targeted strike will divert a planned second attack?
WWJMD – What Would Jim McGovern Do?
it refreshes my belief in Barack Obama’s skills . It has been disconcerting, to say the least, to see his expansion of executive powers and active support of NSA over-reach. The turn-about to go to Congress is an enormously important step for this Administration but perhaps even more importantly for the precedent being set. The POTUS is constitutionally checked on war making powers.
Jack Goldsmith, eh? Perhaps we’ll be hearing from John Yoo and David Addington as well soon. What a dark farce this is. Also, are the ongoing drone strikes against targets in any and all nations somehow not “waging war”? No constitutional problems there- no sir! When was the last time an American President cared about the formality of “declaring war”, or worried that the Constitution relegated that power to Congress? It’s actually revolting to see the Left and RIght suddenly having a Kumbaya moment, to some extent, IMO, at the expense of Syrian civilians under threat of chemical attack from a monstrous dictator and his unscrupulous forces. If this “turnabout” really serves to right the constutional balance, then maybe I’ll become a believer. But it seems to me that Obama’s well-known cowardice kicked in at the last moment, not his conscience.
How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How?
apparently you refuse to answer this question. so i must keep asking it.
twisted, stretched, expanded (whatever adjective you want) executive reach into war powers.
POTUS, Congress and the American people need to think this through because for every action there is a reaction. Our reaction to the heinous, despot dictatorship……the reaction to our action…..with no allies in the room, must be weighed.
Perhaps this is President Barack Obama earning his Nobel Peace Prize.
Lobbyists for foreign interests and good ol’ American death merchants will be blitzkrieging each and every Congressperson for support. We should keep a tally. How much money and power will change hands? How much blackmail and extortion? Those NSA tapes should come in handy.
With 9% of the citizenry supporting war, it will be difficult to vote for war and convince the public that they are the people’s voice.
Will the Whitehouse have a Tonkin Gulf episode up its sleeve?
“I have known a vast quantity of nonsense talked about bad men not looking you in the face. Don’t trust that conventional idea. Dishonesty will stare honesty out of countenance, any day in the week, if there is anything to be got by it.” –Charles Dickens
It’s important to consider ALL options before choosing violence. Now that Obama has stated he is willing to attack Syria (and it’s likely Congress will support him, especially if Assad’s military keeps using sarin gas), he might be able to convince Assad to do something like get the Russians to bargain (I understand Russia needs access to Syria’s ports, which they might not get if Sunni Muslim rebels take over). At the very least people who debate this should consider this article (which I found at Digby’s Blog) and not trap themselves in a groupthink debate of bomb or do nothing.
A missile strike could kill more people than the gas did… let’s consider all the options, not just Missile Strike: Yea or Nay.
Assad supposedly wants an Alawite enclave, at this point we could give his faction the East, get him to resign in exchange for defacto autonomy over the areas he doesn’t control. Bosnia-Herzvogonia’s borders are the cease fire lines, we could partition Syria the same way. It beats continuing the killing or a foolhardy Western intervention.
FDR was a great deceiver. History reveals the deceived his friends, supporters, family and countrymen time and time again. This was his way. It did not make him a bad president.
What would FDR do were his administration drowning in scandal after scandal, necessarily hiding information from public scrutiny? Would he have concocted a situation that he could easily walk away from whenever he thought the time ripe? A situation that would garner national interest? A situation that would extinguish interest in previous scandal? Would he show himself weak enough for the sharks to circle? Would he then rope-a-dope the opposition?
Our current president is no slouch. He’s an expert campaigner and knows how to move public opinion and sway crowds. How many of us believed in “Hope & Change”? Supported him when he changed into the mantle of the nouveau libéral, the Democrats’ version of neo conservative?
Is presidential criticism being rope-a-doped away? Is Syria the weak position that erases the public memory of NSA, Benghazi, IRS, gun running, etc? When viewed this way, the Syria adventure looks like sheer public relations genius. No matter what Congress does, the past is forgotten (the politicians and public easily forget) and the Administration either wars or not and blames Congress for the choice.
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” –Franklin D. Roosevelt