Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv
That Congressional authorization would give the President the kind of legitimacy that is only possible through such authorization is not up for question. The tactical approach was awkward, to say the least. The President had two major approaches that were possible with respect to the timing of his request for Congressional authorization and three major options overall if he wanted to pursue a military response:
1. All but decide a course of action and then seek authorization (that's the approach that was chosen): The problem is that such a tactical approach would be seen as hesitation. In the wake of very real hesitation on Egypt, the risk was especially high that such a course would create unfavorable perceptions. It did. The Assad dictatorship has already portrayed the action as an "historic retreat" by the U.S.
First of all, if you're choosing to take the rhetoric of Assad as having any significance, I'd suggest you stop and just think about that for a second. My guess is that many people who claim to be our enemies over the years have said similar things.
The anti-Assad movement, eager for the U.S. to take on the kind of risks it won't take on its own with respect to strategic Syrian military targets, has minimized the support the U.S. has been providing. Domestic ideological opponents have exploited the situation as yet another opportunity to try to score ideological points. There is real risk that the President's ability to argue that a military response is legitimate would be badly undercut if the Congress fails to approve the authorization (probably not the most likely scenario) or a strong minority of either House rejects authorization.
I still don't see where the embarrassment would be. This is the option he chose and regardless of how Congress acts, Obama would have no reason to be embarrassed. Might he be frustrated? Yes. Might he dislike the decision? Yes. But the fact of the matter is Syria intervention is an incredibly difficult decision, no matter what happens. There is no "right" answer and absent a clear "right" answer, it's hard to see why the President should be embarrassed by anything Congress decides.
2. Ask for authorization before deciding the final course: That would have required discipline to avoid the temptation "to do something" in the face of the chemical weapons attack. However, were the Congress to authorize a military response, one would not be dealing with the criticism currently being applied to the approach that was taken, much less the damaging perceptions that it created. Were Congress to refuse to authorize a military response, the President would not suffer the kind of PR setback as would happen were Congress to refuse his current request for authorization.
I'm sorry, I do not understand this thinking. I understand your position, I simply do not understand why it would be any different.
3. Undertake military action as is the President's authority under the War Powers Act and then inform Congress: Some in Congress would make the perennial argument that the President overstepped his "constitutional authority." As has been the case with past limited military responses, such arguments would not carry the day.
During a crisis, one needs a strong response. Commitments made are commitments that need to be acted upon. Ambiguity or uncertainy is not helpful.
I disagree completely. During a crises, one does not need a "strong" response, one needs a careful, calculated and considered response. Simply choosing a course of action and sticking with it will lead to disaster more often than it will lead to success. It's not like we have missles hurdling towards the US right now, we don't HAVE to take an action five minutes ago. We SHOULD be discussing and deliberating, we should be making sure all of our intelligence is confirmed and we should be making sure we are committed to this action.
Simply being a cowboy, as people accused Bush of being, turned out very poorly for this country, for Bush and for his political party. We should be taking caution with this situation in Syria because it is a very volatile and very unique situation.
Given that the President all but decided on a military response--and walking back what was said does not change the reality--the second and third options were most viable. The approach that was taken has introduced a large sense of uncertainty and that uncertainty was swiftly exploited by all participants to the sectarian conflict, not to mention the President's domestic ideological foes. To outsiders, it has created perceptions of hesitation and weakness. Those perceptions were avoidable had the President pursued the second or third courses of action.
People are far too worried about what they think others think other leaders think. Assad "exploited" it, but he's the man who just murdered 1400 people, something tells me his word doesn't carry much weight. The fact is I do not believe for a second other world leaders put nearly the weight into chest thumping as you seem to think they do.
Looking ahead, there is risk that a U.S. effort to "degrade" Syria's strategic military capabilities (an implicit commitment to facilitate regime change) will be met by greater assistance to Assad by Russia, Iran, and/or Hezbollah. If that happens, what will the next U.S. step be? Moreover, are Congress and the President willing to embrace a growing commitment and the costs it would entail? Would such an effort be worth it as no matter who wins the sectarian conflict does not appear to offer any meaningful prospect of adopting policies that would be more consistent with U.S. interests?
All great questions. Which is why it's good our President has decided to make sure our country has a voice in what we do, instead of unilaterally decided to attack.
Finally, Senator McCain's enthusiastic backing of the Free Syrian Army notwithstanding, the reality is that the opposition has never provided any concrete commitments to adopt policies more conducive to U.S. interests. At the same time, it has never committed to pursuing peace with Israel (a strategic U.S. ally). Domestically, it has never set forth a "constitution-in-waiting" or similar document that would entail inclusive, representative government. It has had more than two years to do so. In contrast, its actions in territory it has gained suggests an illiberal regime with a high probability of persecuting Syria's ethnic and religious minorities.
All true...which again shows the incredibly delicate and difficult situation which we have on our hands and why it's good our President has opted to make sure our country has their voice.
I still don't see why he should be embarrassed because of this.
But that's the whole point Sly, he DOES have to.
Realistically, no he does not.