Will the Congress approve military action against Syria

[MadImmortalMan]

With both Pelosi and Boehner behind it, there seems to be little chance of it failing in the House outside of GOP backbencher revolt.

[DGuller]

If that were entirely true, the U.S. would have been kicked off long ago.

I meant non-permanent members, obviously.

[CountDeMoney]

With both Pelosi and Boehner behind it, there seems to be little chance of it failing in the House outside of GOP backbencher revolt.

Yup, it'll go through now.
And for all their barking, even the GOP doesn't want to seem weak on foreign policy.  The President will get the authorization he wants.

Jacob: it's all for the appearance of legitimacy.  US polling says the public doesn't like the idea, but that won't matter.

[Jacob]

With both Pelosi and Boehner behind it, there seems to be little chance of it failing in the House outside of GOP backbencher revolt.

Yup, it'll go through now.
And for all their barking, even the GOP doesn't want to seem weak on foreign policy.  The President will get the authorization he wants.

Jacob: it's all for the appearance of legitimacy.  US polling says the public doesn't like the idea, but that won't matter.

So it breaks down to this: Obama thinks he should do it, the US public is lukewarm - so he gets Congress to give him approval to get political cover?

Seems reasonable to me.

It's kind of interesting to see this moment where pro- and anti- types haven't quite found their one-dimensional narratives with broad buy-in yet.

[DGuller]

It's kind of interesting to see this moment where pro- and anti- types haven't quite found their one-dimensional narratives with broad buy-in yet.

It's kind of hard sometimes, you know? 

[alfred russel]

This kicking to Congress thing is interesting.

What are your guys' thinking on:

A: the reason Obama kicked it to Congress?

I've heard "political cover for an unpopular action" and "genuine belief that that's how it should be done" in this thread? Any other scenarios?

B: How's do you see it playing out? Both in terms of US domestic politics and in Syria?

To answer B, I could be wrong but I bet this means immigration reform won't happen.

The House Republican leadership is under pressure not to give immigration reform a chance to pass because it apparently has a majority of support in the House but not a majority of republican support. There has been speculation that passing immigration reform could result in a change in republican leadership. On the other hand, republican leadership has to know that it is seen as obstructionist and knee jerk anti - Obama.

I doubt that they would move twice to piss off their base in close succession. It seems more likely they would split the issues to also ease the obstructionist image, while holding the line on what really matters to them.

[jimmy olsen]

With both Pelosi and Boehner behind it, there seems to be little chance of it failing in the House outside of GOP backbencher revolt.

Yup, it'll go through now.
And for all their barking, even the GOP doesn't want to seem weak on foreign policy.  The President will get the authorization he wants.

Jacob: it's all for the appearance of legitimacy.  US polling says the public doesn't like the idea, but that won't matter.

So it breaks down to this: Obama thinks he should do it, the US public is lukewarm - so he gets Congress to give him approval to get political cover?

Seems reasonable to me.

It's kind of interesting to see this moment where pro- and anti- types haven't quite found their one-dimensional narratives with broad buy-in yet.

I think this guy's closer than most journalists to Obama's reasoning.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/09/obama_going_to_congress_on_syria_he_s_actually_strengthening_the_war_powers.html

Obama Is Only Making His War Powers Mightier
The credit the president is getting for asking Congress to authorize bombing Syria? He deserves none of it.

By Eric Posner|Posted Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2013, at 1:07 PM


President Obama's surprise announcement that he will ask Congress for approval of a military attack on Syria is being hailed as a vindication of the rule of law and a revival of the central role of Congress in war-making, even by critics. But all of this is wrong. Far from breaking new legal ground, President Obama has reaffirmed the primacy of the executive in matters of war and peace. The war powers of the presidency remain as mighty as ever.

It would have been different if the president had announced that only Congress can authorize the use of military force, as dictated by the Constitution, which gives Congress alone the power to declare war. That would have been worthy of notice, a reversal of the ascendance of executive power over Congress. But the president said no such thing. He said: "I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization." Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed that the president "has the right to do that"—launch a military strike—"no matter what Congress does."

Thus, the president believes that the law gives him the option to seek a congressional yes or to act on his own. He does not believe that he is bound to do the first. He has merely stated the law as countless other presidents and their lawyers have described it before him.
Advertisement

The president's announcement should be understood as a political move, not a legal one. His motive is both self-serving and easy to understand, and it has been all but acknowledged by the administration. If Congress now approves the war, it must share blame with the president if what happens next in Syria goes badly. If Congress rejects the war, it must share blame with the president if Bashar al-Assad gases more Syrian children. The big problem for Obama arises if Congress says no and he decides he must go ahead anyway, and then the war goes badly. He won't have broken the law as he understands it, but he will look bad. He would be the first president ever to ask Congress for the power to make war and then to go to war after Congress said no. (In the past, presidents who expected dissent did not ask Congress for permission.)

People who celebrate the president for humbly begging Congress for approval also apparently don't realize that his understanding of the law—that it gives him the option to go to Congress—maximizes executive power vis-à-vis Congress. If the president were required to act alone, without Congress, then he would have to take the blame for failing to use force when he should and using force when he shouldn't. If he were required to obtain congressional authorization, then Congress would be able to block him. But if he can have it either way, he can force Congress to share responsibility when he wants to and avoid it when he knows that it will stand in his way.

This approach also empowers the president relative to Congress by giving him the ability to embarrass members of Congress when he wants to. Just ask Hillary Clinton, whose vote in favor of the 2003 Iraq War damaged her chances against Barack Obama in 2008, and the Democratic senators who could not enter the 1992 campaign for the presidency because their votes against the 1991 Iraq War rendered them unelectable. The best thing for individual members of Congress is to be able to carp on the sidelines—to complain about not being consulted and to blame the president if the war goes badly. That is why David Axelrod said, "Congress is now the dog that caught the car." This is hardball politics, not a rediscovery of legal values.

If Obama gains by spreading blame among Congress, why didn't the president ask Congress for military authorization earlier, before he threatened Syria with a missile strike? The answer appears to be that the president expected international support for the invasion and believed that if other countries supported him, he would not need support in Congress. Only when the British poodle rediscovered its inner lion did he shift gears. Again, this has nothing to do with the law; it's a matter of political prudence.

And it is not hard to see why foreign countries refused to provide support. The legal rationale for the Syria intervention that the president fashioned—deterring the use of chemical weapons—has satisfied no other country. While no one likes chemical weapons, there is no reason to believe that the U.S. must deter their use by striking Syria. Iraq used chemical weapons 30 years ago, but no country followed its lead—even though no one bombed Iraq to punish it. Countries refrain from using chemical weapons because they inspire revulsion among people that governments usually need for support, not because there is a "norm" against them. And no matter how often Obama and Kerry say that they must intervene to enforce this norm, everyone understands that the real reason for U.S. intervention is to maintain the administration's credibility, or to ensure that the U.S. retains influence over events, or to give a psychological boost to moderate Syrian rebel groups—not to vindicate international law (which the U.S. is violating in any event by disregarding the United Nations charter).

Some countries want to bombard Syria in order to stop the atrocities or counter Iran or lift favored rebel groups to power. Other countries want Syria left alone. But no country (except perhaps France) sees any sense in a limited strike to punish Syria for using chemical weapons—and, moreover, in such a way as to sting but not topple Assad's government, a view shared by Sen. John McCain as well. You either kill the rattlesnake or leave it alone; you don't poke it with a stick. So Obama's international law theory failed not just because of its legal defects, but because it did not mesh with political realities. When Obama charged ahead nonetheless, he found himself naked and alone, and he turned to Congress for cover.

[jimmy olsen]

I think the Bathists will be disappointed.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/syrian-forces-us-missile-targets

Syrian military commanders are continuing to redeploy forces away from sensitive sites ahead of a postponed US air strike that many in Damascus believe is still likely.

Residents of the Syrian capital said on Monday that troops had moved into schools and universities, which officials calculate are unlikely to be hit if Barack Obama orders an attack following a congressional vote next Monday.

After a week of deep anxiety, his declaration that he would ask Congress to debate his plans to attack led to intense relief in the past 48 hours among many in Damascus, and well beyond.

Damascenes reported more checkpoints than usual in regime-held areas, but said the capital continued to function as it had during the past two years of ever more entrenched war. In rebel-held districts, where siege and deprivation have bitten deeper, locals claimed a sense of despair had descended after Obama's speech.

"They were so close to doing something," said Umm Latifa, the widowed head of a household of six children in east Damascus. "Anything to make [the regime] scared would have been a blessing."

In Beirut, where last week's buildup was also acutely felt, the streets were at their busiest in several weeks and a palpable air of tension appeared to have lifted slightly. But by nightfall on Monday, reminders of what might lay ahead resurfaced as Lebanese media carried reports of Hezbollah ordering thousands of its members to switch off their phones and report to fighting positions.

The reaction to a strike from the powerful Shia militia, a resolute ally of the Assad regime, will be instrumental in determining whether the stated US goal of a narrow operation can be achieved.

Many in Lebanon fear that some form of retribution from Syria's allies is inevitable, unless they are convinced that the propaganda value of riding out a short, sharp attack that changes little is higher than the cost of not responding.

"This is a very big decision for Hezbollah – make that Iran," said a Lebanese political leader who did not want to be named. "They want to create the impression that it's all on the line for the Americans. But it's bluff at this point. A game with very high stakes."

Their fates long seen as indelibly tied, Lebanon's fortunes, and the confidence of its residents, have risen and fallen roughly in line with those of the Syrian government. Two large car bombs in Tripoli, Lebanon, and a relatively rare rocket attack against Israel quickly followed the suspected chemical weapons attack in Damascus of 21 April, prompting some Beirut-based political foes of the Assad regime to suggest the attacks were planned as a diversion.

The Lebanese Internal Security Forces have charged two clerics in the north, who they allege had confessed to dealings with Syrian intelligence figures in the days before the blasts and knew that the two bomb-laden cars had been driven to Tripoli from the Syrian city of Tartus.

They have also charged in absentia the head of Syria's General Intelligence Bureau, General Ali Mamlouk, as well as a junior intelligence officer.

It emerged on Monday that Russia had dispatched a military reconnaissance ship to the eastern Mediterranean, where five US warships are operating in the lead-up to a widely expected air strike in Syria.

The Priazovye departed for the Syrian coast on Sunday to keep tabs on the situation there, Russia's state news agency Itar-Tass quoted a military source as saying. Russia's foreign minister has previously said his country was not planning to become involved in a military conflict over Syria.

"This is the normal policy of any fleet in the case of an increase in tensions in any ocean or sea," the source said.

The Russian deployment follows the arrival last week of the USS Stout, a guided missile destroyer, sent to relieve the USS Mahan. A US defence official told AFP that both destroyers might remain in the area for now. Along with the Ramage, the Barry and the Gravely, the destroyers could launch Tomahawk missiles at targets in Syria if Obama orders an attack.

A group of US ships led by the aircraft carrier Nimitz have been deployed in the Arabian Sea.

On Monday, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said a US strike would put the proposed Geneva II peace conference in serious doubt, Itar-Tass reported.

"If the action announced by the president of the US unfortunately occurs, it will put off prospects for the forum for a long time, if not for ever," Lavrov said.

Lavrov said Moscow remained unconvinced by US allegations that the Assad regime was behind the chemical attack after a meeting between the US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, and a senior Russian diplomat. The material presented by the US contained no facts and "absolutely does not convince us", Lavrov said.

[dps]

This kicking to Congress thing is interesting.

What are your guys' thinking on:

A: the reason Obama kicked it to Congress?

I've heard "political cover for an unpopular action" and "genuine belief that that's how it should be done" in this thread? Any other scenarios?

B: How's do you see it playing out? Both in terms of US domestic politics and in Syria?

To answer B, I could be wrong but I bet this means immigration reform won't happen.

The House Republican leadership is under pressure not to give immigration reform a chance to pass because it apparently has a majority of support in the House but not a majority of republican support. There has been speculation that passing immigration reform could result in a change in republican leadership. On the other hand, republican leadership has to know that it is seen as obstructionist and knee jerk anti - Obama.

I doubt that they would move twice to piss off their base in close succession. It seems more likely they would split the issues to also ease the obstructionist image, while holding the line on what really matters to them.

I don't see a whole lot of evidence that voting to authorize action against Syria would piss of the base.  Best as I can tell, most people don't really give a shit one way or another if we lob a few cruise missles at Syria (actually invading Syria would be another matter).

[DGuller]

I think the Bathists will be disappointed.

Clinton "accidentally" bombed the Chinese embassy which housed Serbian communication center.  I don't think Syrian schools measure up to that.

[MadImmortalMan]

Who gets cover if a bunch more Syrians get gassed while we're waiting for Congress to vote?

[DGuller]

Who gets cover if a bunch more Syrians get gassed while we're waiting for Congress to vote?

Probably not the Syrians being gassed.

[dps]

Who gets cover if a bunch more Syrians get gassed while we're waiting for Congress to vote?

Obama could always blame the Brits:  "If our British allies hadn't been opposed to punishing the Syrian government for the using chemical weapons, I wouldn't have felt it necessary to get approval from Congress before taking military action".

[Phillip V]

Obama Assures Americans This Will Not Be Another 1456 Ottoman Siege Of Belgrade



As fierce debate continued this week over a proposed military strike on Syria, President Obama stressed to all Americans Monday that any U.S. involvement in the Middle Eastern country would not in any way mirror the 1456 Ottoman Siege of Belgrade.

"I of course realize that many people around the country are concerned that an intervention in Syria would devolve into another Siege of Belgrade, but I can assure you that this operation will be swift, decisive, and will in no way resemble the Ottoman Empire's ill-advised invasion of Nándorfehérvár," Obama told the assembled White House Press Corps. "Our mission in Syria is fundamentally different from that of the Ottomans 550 years ago—there will be absolutely no boots on the ground, the attacks will only last for two or three days at the most, and we will, under no circumstances, be deploying a fleet of 200 galleys and 300 cannons."

"I can promise you this: My administration and I will not repeat the mistakes of Sultan Mehmed II," Obama continued. "Believe me, we have all learned the lessons from the campaign to subjugate the Kingdom of Hungary following the fall of Constantinople."

Con't: http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-assures-americans-this-will-not-be-another-1,33719/

[Ideologue]

That was fun.

I hope our entry into Syria mirrors instead the Ottoman advance of 1516.