There is an interesting political situation here now with Obama’s request for Congress to approve the action (let’s put the wisdom of attack on Syria and military/foreign policy consequences aside for now, and just look at domestic politics)
If Congress approves it (Senate and House together, remember), Obama can bomb, however futilely, and it still would be a huge bump for him and his political standing. “The nation united behind me” kind of thing. He will definitely be able to translate that into further advantages on upcoming political fights.
If Congress votes it down and Obama backs off from his “bomb, bomb, bomb Syria” plan, Obama loses, politically, quite a bit. He laid the foundation by pushing the attack very strongly prior to throwing it to Congress, and will look extremely weak (kinda like Cameron does now) afterwards. Does not bode well for the rest of his term.
If Congress votes it down and Obama still orders an attack on Syria, I think all hell breaks loose. I would expect a vote on articles of impeachment in the House, probably passing, then the spectacle of impeachment proceedings in the Senate. An enormous distraction - again, would not bode well for the rest of his term.
Again, if only political considerations were taken into account, I really don’t see how Republicans can justify voting for the attack - either in the House or in the Senate. When the opponent sets himself up for a huge hit, you oblige.
So - if the Congress (especially the House) does vote for the attack, that would mean that a very significant number of Republicans that voted for the resolution would have been acting out of higher motives than just political considerations. And since the “rebel” side in Syria is so distasteful that helping them would probably not be a consideration, such “higher” purpose would be something more philosophical or ethical. Hmmm. I just don’t see it happening. But maybe I’m wrong.
My prediction (just an effin’ guess, to be honest) is that the McCain Republicans eke out a tiny sliver of a majority, and the resolution passes. Obama will then toss a few Tomahawks at some of Assad’s favorite air bases, and very, very little will change. It won’t alter the course of the Syrian civil war; it won’t get Israel dragged in; Russia and Iran will kvetch, but not do anything. The British government will say something magnificently diplomatic, while the British people condemn the launches in massive protests. (Which won’t turn into meaningful political gains in the next Parliamentary elections.)
20 years from now, no one will have any memory of this at all.
No he won’t; thanks to the Republicans saying “no” is pretty much all Congress has been doing for years. This will just be once more. Any political cost to Obama has already been paid by him.
Nor has it been before, given what suck-ups the Democrats are. Besides it doesn’t matter; Congress has taught people to look at them as irrational obstructionists, and that’s what them saying “no” about almost anything is going to be taken as by this point.
As I said elsewhere, today’s speech amounts to nothing more than a public hand-washing. " I wish I could do more, and in fact I actually could if I wanted to, but it’s out of my hands now. Let the Congress decide."
I am pleased, and frankly a bit surprised, to see Obama correctly seeking approval from Congress prior to military action. Respect for the separation of powers has not been very high in his administration.
I am not convinced that Obama truly wants to engage the military. My hunch is that he is looking for Congress to bail hm out by voting down a use of force resolution.
Congress is not going to vote in favor of military action against Syria. It isn’t going to happen. This is not a Dem vs Rep issue. The president is not going to get the support of even his own party for this. Particularly in the absence of support from our allies.
When Congress votes against action it will not be a negative for Obama. He is counting on it and will blame Congress for obstructing his policies. Same excuse as always, different day. And it will be accepted by the general public.
He is not going to go against the vote of Congress. He would be truly alone on the world stage. He has not forged bonds with other leaders in Europe and elsewhere, has no coalition supporting his intentions and his foreign policy skills are weak, to give a charitable description.
Put it before Congress, blame Congress for inaction, I did what I could. It’s a great strategy and I think that is what I would do if I were in his position. I seriously doubt that even one cruise missile will be sent in. I could be wrong.
They will say “No” but with ambiguity and trapdoors. “No” so long as no direct threat to America, that one is a “gimmee”. But provision will be made such that if in his judgement some further horror is about to happen, and, in his judgement, America holds the decisive means to prevent such a thing…then OK.
If internet video is released of Sadd…Assad, excuse…using kittens for hand grenades and the American public is furious because nothing was done, Congressgits will snivel “Hey, not us, he didn’t have the guts to use the power and discretion we gave him! Not our fault!”
As a factual matter, has it ever occurred in American history that the president asked Congress to declare war/authorize military force, and they refused?
… or how they can play up “…the potential threat to staunch ally Israel’s security”. There is more threat to Israel’s security from US feeble attack. Assads - dad and son - didn’t attack Israel for what - 40 years now? There is a lot more threat from the jihadist “rebels” if/when they get hold of all that Assad’s arsenal.
My prediction is that the measure is DOA in Congress regardless of the evidence presented. Congress is so vehemently anti-Obama, they’d rather cut off their nose than to align themselves with Obama. Will make great attack ads in 2014 against Republicans when the Syria Civil War kicks into high gear.
I predict an ass load of hypocrisy, spin, backpedaling, “I was for it before I was against it” contortions, crocodile tears, and fake angst coming from both sides of the aisle.
Mostly though it will be a political calculus by each member on how their vote will affect them in 2014.
I think its just a political ploy. The GOP will do anything to make Obama look bad, and that includes preventing him from upholding his word on retaliating against Syria for using WMD. So Obama avoids going to war and he gets to blame the GOP for the US’s drop in credibility. It wasn’t a constitutional agenda. That is my interpretation of events.
Politics aside, Assad linked groups are committing cyberwar against the US, and Syria’s gov is linked to nations like Iran and terror organizations like Hezbollah. So it isn’t like this is strictly an intellectual exercise. Syria arguably posed a stronger threat to us than Libya.
I think it’s both a political ploy and an action that can be taken at face value. Obama is using good governance to make himself look good. I don’t think it goes deeper than that, with Obama secretly wishing not to strike Syria. He’s just trying to distinguish himself from Bush.