If I was Boehner or McConnell, I would whip the caucuses like they’ve never been whipped before to get every single Republican to vote “no”. If the Rs in both houses are really, really unified, and then they rush to microphones to say that they voted for what the majority of Americans believe, they can spin it as representing True Americans rather than just obstructing Obama, and politically it’ll be a stalemate, rather than an Obama win.
This may only work for new GOP members who were not there to enthusiastically support the Gulf War II. They’re locked into supporting an aggressive foreign policy especially a much smaller intervention with much better supporting evidence.
It wouldn’t hurt very much in the House, where gerrymandering means that the voting population won’t mind hypocrisy as long as they get to stick it to Obama, but it may mean that some Senators will not be able to effectively oppose action in Syria.
No one is “locked into” anything.
Most Americans think the Iraq war was a mistake. I don’t think anyone is going to suffer any serious consequences for not voting in favor of another action that only has about 30% support among Americans right now.
That isn’t the precedent that would be set, so you’re already off on the wrong foot. This boils down to “it is easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission.” Had Obama simply attacked, the chances are extremely low that Congress would consider impeachment.
But Obama asked permission. If Congress denies it, then Obama is directly refuting the congressional power of war that he asked them to exercise. Just an extreme rejection of a legislative action is a precedent that no member of Congress should countenance.
Nah, they’ll all be dead by then.
It’s being said in some quarters that a delayed strike could embolden Assad to do more chemical attacks. It seems to me that would be to Obama’s advantage, because then he could point to Assad and say: “See? He’s never going to stop.” I’m not saying Obama is hoping for another attack between now and the congressional vote, but the feeling I get is that people seem to be assuming this is the only attack that’s going to happen.
If the attacks do keep occurring, how will that affect people’s opinion about an American strike? And I assume the British parliament could call another vote, that this last one was not final forever.
Obama is not asking Congress for war powers. He has asserted that he doesn’t need it. He’s asking for a vote so that there is some consensus in this country for action. Impeachment would indeed set the precedent that the president cannot act with Congress’s permission. Some Republicans might want that precedent to be set, but not enough to win a majority vote.
The White House sent a proposed text for an authorization for the use of military force to Congress. That is asking for “war powers,” or more precisely, congressional approval for a military attack.
Bush I asserted that he didn’t need an authorization either. But Congress voted, and that is that. If Obama simply wanted consensus, he could have asked for a non-binding resolution of support. Aside from that being a stupid idea, that isn’t what he asked for: he asked for an AUMF.
I think you mistyped, but you’re certainly misthinking. Impeachment would set the precedent that the President cannot ignore a congressional vote against war. The precedents of Presidents using the armed forces without asking Congress for permission is centuries old and a mile long.
Where is the precedent for Congress rejecting the use of force and the President ignoring that? I can only think of one half-precedent which is a lot less clear than this situation today. The idea that Congress would vote against war, have the country to to war anyway on the President’s sole discretion, and then Congress just shrug its shoulders and ignore the blatant violation of the fundamental principles of the separation of powers is just mind boggling to me. I say again: if Obama wished to act alone, he probably could have without severe consequences. But the rubicon has been crossed, and he now needs Congressional approval because he asked for it. That request cannot be undone.
I disagree; he’ll look terrible. The fact that the Republicans said “no” to something in 2010 is not relevant to 99.9% of anyone whose opinion matters, public opinion, or posterity.
It would look absolutely terrible for Obama to have talked about “red lines” and then do nothing about them. “You stop or else” is the worst thing you can possibly say when the “or else” never happens.
I can;t believe Obama would be stupid enough to go ahead with military action if Congress fails to give him authorization for military action. The point of asking Congress is to save face when Obama doesn’t do anything. But the whole idea of first saying he needs permission, then he doesn’t need permission, then asking for permission, and then going ahead without permission, doesn’t make him look weak, it makes him look stupid.
If he doesn’t need permission, and wants to bomb Syria, then he should go ahead and bomb. (It’s a dumb idea, but so was his “red line” comment.) But if he doesn’t need permission, then what possible gain is there in asking permission and then going ahead when permission is refused?
It’s a bad situtation. Obama needs to quit while he’s behind.
Regards,
Shodan
He is asking for approval right now, under these circumstances. In two months, if circumstances change, he can act without Congress’ say-so If you disagree with that, how long will a “no” vote on this resolution be binding on the president?
Yes, I did mistype. I think where you are mistaken is confuting a “surgical strike” like Obama is proposing with “going to war”. Obama would argue, and I think most Congressmen would agree, that what Obama is proposing is not “going to war”.
Is there a precedent of the president asking Congress for an AUMF and not getting it?
This isn’t “going to war”. And if the Congress shoots down the president’s request, how long will that be binding for? If Assad start dropping more CWs, in December, does Obama have to go back to Congress again, or can he act under the authority that all modern presidents have claimed?
Please cite your definition of dropping bombs on another country as “not going to war.”
War Lite.
Is it not within the powers of the president, apart from the sole authority given to Congress to “declare war”, to execute limited strikes such as this?
Does the president have the constitutional authority to engage the military as Obama is proposing to do in Syria without authorization from Congress? Every president in modern times has claimed to have such authority, and every president except Carter in modern times has used it. No president has been impeached for doing so.
If the president has that constitutional authority, then Congress cannot take that authority away by statute. As you said, they can impeach, but that would set a precedent that the president does not have the constitutional authority to use even limited force without approval from Congress.
Now, my person view (apart from what happens in the real world) is that president does not have that authority. But I recognize that mine is a fringe, minority view, not shared by most Americans, be they Republicans or Democrats, and not shared by most members of Congress.
I think now that he has asked Congress, he can’t (politically) go ahead in Syria without that permission. If circumstances change, he’ll need to ask Congress again…unless there is an attack on American forces or other direct threat to national security.
Could be. I’m not arguing that Obama definitely will attack no matter what the vote is form Congress, but I wouldn’t rule out him doing so as most people here seem to be doing. Perhaps the more likely scenario is that if Congress votes “no” now and there are more CW attacks, they will quickly give him a “yes” vote without him even having to ask for it.
But still, I don’t think Obama, or any president, would accept that they do not have the constitutional authority to act w/o authorization from Congress. And if that is the case, then Congress cannot take that authority away.
Ordinarily, I’d agree. If he’d decided to act on his own, I doubt there would have been any serious question about his authority to do so. But here, once POTUS cedes part of his authority to Congress by asking them to authorize force, I think he’s at least politically bound to accept their decision absent a change in circumstances that directly threatens our national security.
“Politically” means different things in your first vs second term. I agree that he may hurt is party some, but his political career is over, so he has nothing to worry about except his legacy. Does he want to go down in history as the only president who asked and did not receive or the only president who defied Congress and “did the right thing”?
Tough choice.
What exactly would be the point in asking if he was going to attack anyways? Obama saw he was going to probably have to go at it alone and looked for an “out”. That is the only reason for asking in the first place after being so gungho before.
He has no UNSC resolution. He has no Arab League consensus. He doesn’t even have a “Coalition of the Willing”. He has France, which doesn’t mean a whole lot in this country. In fact, he might be better off without France.
He’s starting to look like a Cowboy, so he figures Congress will never vote “no” and he has nothing to lose. Maybe he figured wrong.
Honestly, he sometimes seems to approach foreign policy in such a tactical (as opposed to strategic) manner, that I’m not even sure he’s worried about crossing that bridge until he gets there.