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.).
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
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.
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.
-
Helsinki's year of zero road fatalitiesUnder the Radar Finland's 'Vision Zero' safety strategy 'shifts responsibility for crashes from road users to the designers of the road system'
-
Critics' choice: Outstanding new Japanese restaurantsFeature An all-women sushi team, a 15-seat listening bar, and more
-
Why do Dana White and Donald Trump keep pushing for a White House UFC match?TODAY'S BIG QUESTION The president and the sports mogul each have their own reasons for wanting a White House spectacle
-
Putin’s threat to fracture Ukrainefeature Fears that Russia was building a pretext for an invasion of eastern Ukraine grew, as pro-Kremlin protesters occupied government buildings in three cities.
-
Curbing NSA surveillance
feature The White House said it will propose a broad overhaul of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program.
-
Downsizing the military
feature A new budget plan for the Pentagon would save hundreds of billions of dollars by taking the military off its post-9/11 war footing.
-
Putin ratchets up pressure on Ukraine
feature Russian President Vladimir Putin put 150,000 troops at the Ukraine border on high alert and cut off $15 billion in financial aid.
-
Ukraine on the brink of civil war
feature Ukraine’s capital was engulfed in flames and violence when hundreds of riot police launched an assault on an anti-government protest camp.
-
Ukraine at the breaking point
feature An alliance of opposition groups vowed protests would continue until President Viktor Yanukovych is removed from power.
-
Dim prospects for Syrian talks
feature A long-awaited Syrian peace conference in Montreux, Switzerland, quickly degenerated into a cross fire of bitter accusations.
-
The fight over jobless benefits
feature A bill to restore federal benefits for the long-term unemployed advanced when six Republican senators voted with Democrats.