Obama hands decision on Syria to Congress

What happened

In a surprising, high-stakes gamble, President Obama has asked Congress for approval of a punitive military strike on Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s regime—a vote whose outcome looked very uncertain this week. Key Republicans, including Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham and House Speaker John Boehner, announced their support for a strike, saying that Assad must be punished for an Aug. 21 sarin gas attack that killed more than 1,400 civilians. If he were allowed to violate international prohibitions on chemical weapons, they said, it would embolden Iran, North Korea, and other rogue nations. “The use of these weapons has to be responded to, and only the U.S. has the capability,” said Boehner. But various polls showed that about 60 percent of Americans oppose U.S. military intervention, and many House members—including Tea Party Republicans and some liberal Democrats—appeared likely to vote against the resolution when Congress votes, perhaps next week. “It is not the time for Americans to be subjected to the potential of yet another unwinnable overseas war,” said Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.).

Obama said he had the authority to order the strike on his own, but that “the country will be stronger...and our actions will be even more effective” if the U.S. government were united behind the strike. He described the planned attack as “a shot across the bow.” But McCain said that during talks in the White House, Obama discussed a more extensive operation that would “change the momentum on the ground” in Syria toward the rebels—indicating a broader attack on Assad’s air force and other military assets.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What the editorials said

Obama “made the right call,” said The Denver Post. The Constitution clearly bestows the power to declare war on Congress, and a military strike on Syria “is an indisputable act of war.” There are many risks associated with intervening in Syria, and it’s vital that our elected representatives take part in a real debate about whether to go down that road.

“This will go down as one of the stranger gambles, if not abdications, in commander in chief history,” said The Wall Street Journal. In the days following the August atrocity, administration officials repeatedly said the president was preparing to take action. Then last week, Obama stunned his aides by punting the issue to Congress. So much for the surprise factor, said the Boston Herald. Thanks to Obama’s inept “dithering,” the Assad regime has been given two weeks to hide its artillery, tanks, and planes in densely populated areas.

What the columnists said

Obama’s handling of Syria “has been a case study in how not to do foreign policy,” said Fareed Zakaria in CNN.com. From the start, he wanted no part of the country’s sectarian civil war. But to look tough, Obama announced two years ago that Assad “must go,” and last year warned Assad that the use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line.” Those ill-considered words painted Obama into a corner, and to duck responsibility for the consequences, he’s asked Congress to take a vote. The president’s vacillation on Syria has wrecked America’s credibility, said Elliott Abrams in Politico.com. Who in Moscow, Beijing, or Tehran “will now think this president is a leader who must be feared?”

Obama’s “monumental gamble” will pay off in the long run, said Fred Kaplan in Slate.com. If he had simply ordered an attack, Republicans would snipe at him relentlessly for doing too little and for doing too much. Now, however, Congress has to commit to any intervention, giving Obama a freer hand.

It’s entirely possible, however, that Obama will lose in the GOP-controlled House, said Josh Kraushaar in NationalJournal.com. Congressmen facing tough elections in swing districts are acutely aware that voting for an attack would cost them votes from war-weary constituents. “Factor in the incentives to oppose Obama at all costs and a rising tide of libertarianism [in the GOP], and it’s hard to see a majority of Republicans supporting the president.” If the House votes no, Obama’s presidency will be badly damaged.