Will the Congress approve military action against Syria

[jimmy olsen]

So, what do you think? I think that the only plausible options are 1 and 2, but I posted 3 and 4 for completness sake.

Please list your vote. I think it could go either way in the House, and expect a narrow margin. Hard to say at this point. So I'll just vote for the option I prefer, which is #1.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/08/obama_s_syria_speech_his_decision_to_seek_congressional_approval_for_his.html

Obama's Gamble
Seeking congressional approval for his Syria strike was risky and right.

By Fred Kaplan|Posted Saturday, Aug. 31, 2013, at 3:49 PM


President Obama is taking a monumental gamble with his Rose Garden statement on war with Syria, but it's a worthwhile one.

In recent days he and Secretary of State John Kerry have made a powerful case that Bashar al-Assad's regime launched the chemical weapons that killed more than 1,000 civilians in a suburb of Damascus. All 16 U.S. intelligence agencies have said, in a special report, that they have "high confidence" in this assessment.

Obama has also made a strong case that a military response is the proper action—not in order to get involved in the Syrian civil war (which he has said we cannot affect with force alone) or to oust Assad from power (though that may be a side effect), but rather to enforce a long-standing global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

However, this rationale for military strikes (which I agree with) puts him in a box. The organizations charged with enforcing international law are not joining in the attack. The U.N. Security Council is "paralyzed," as Obama said in today's speech, because Russia will certainly veto any resolution to use force. In the 1999 Kosovo crisis, President Clinton, also faced with Russian recalcitrance, turned to NATO as the entity to launch a massive air campaign. Obama's aides cited Kosovo as a possible model when they floated the idea of a strike several days ago, but the British Parliament's refusal to authorize force precludes the NATO option as well. Many members of the Arab League support American action against Assad, but they are unlikely to take a formal position either.

Obama has assembled a small coalition of foreign allies who have said they'll join in an attack, including France, Australia, and—most important—Turkey. But this isn't enough. And, again, this isn't a matter of legal nicety. It's a matter of political legitimacy, which will be needed to convince Assad that there's determination behind the first few airstrikes—and to provide ballast in case the attack doesn't have much effect.

To gain some measure of legitimacy, Obama at least needs domestic support. And so, in addition to announcing that he'd decided to launch an attack on Syrian targets, he also announced that he would have Congress debate and vote on a resolution authorizing military force. The lawmakers aren't scheduled to return to Washington from vacation until Sept. 9, but it's worth the wait (though couldn't he demand they come back sooner?).

If Obama had simply announced that he was launching an attack, he would have prompted endless sniping from Congress, especially if the first few days of airstrikes had no effect. And Assad would watch the sniping with glee, concluding—rightly or wrongly—that the American attacks wouldn't last long, so he should hold firm for a few days more.

An authorization on the use of force binds Congress to Obama's actions—assuming the measure passes. It will also have the salutary effect of shifting precedents on America's use of force generally. Maybe the new standard will be that Congress does play a role in any such decision. No more lazy sniping—or hollow rooting—from the sidelines. Those who have long urged Obama to do something about Syria, and then criticized him in recent days for doing something (just because it's Obama who's doing it), will now have to step up and take a stand.

As Obama walked away from the podium, a reporter asked what he would do if Congress voted down a resolution. He said nothing, but the answer seems pretty clear. If Congress votes no, he won't launch an attack. The legislators will come to realize this, and will see that this is not a parlor game, and I think that's why they'll vote in favor.

There will be lessons noted from Iraq, and I suspect the authorization will impose limits on the duration and perhaps the scope of military action. Some will complain that these limits constrain the president, but in fact they free him. Who knows? Maybe we will learn—contrary to the experience of the past decade—that a democracy can go to war in a full and open vote without deceit.

[Savonarola]

So, what do you think? I think that the only plausible options are 1 and 2, but I posted 3 and 4 for completness sake.

I think 4 is a plausible outcome; I doubt very much that every Democrat is going to vote in favor of a foreign military adventure.

That being said I think that the Military-Industrial Complex owns enough congressmen and senators to get the bill through both houses.

[Ed Anger]

I pressed the '8'  button.

[CountDeMoney]

It will need to be a joint resolution, and while the Senate may vote yes in a close one, the House version will be entitled the "The Authorization of the Use of Force against the Syrian Arab Republic and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Federal Funding Prohibition Act", at which point the President will not accept it, and the only other avenue for a US response would be to then embark on a PSA program designed to instruct Syrians to hold their breath during chemical attacks.

It will not go through.

Big Winners: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, assorted GOP isolationist noodleheads, everybody else who hates the Black Kenyan Anti-Colonial Muslim Socialist for the sake of hating the Black Kenyan Anti-Colonial Muslim Socialist, Assad, Hezbollah, goofball Sunni AQ-types, Tehran.

Big Losers: Obama, NATO, the UN, the Chemical Weapons Convention, Neo-Liberal Institutional IR Theory, implied powers of the POTUS regarding US Foreign Policy and as C-in-C, Healthcare.

Bonne chance, France!

[DontSayBanana]

[jimmy olsen]

So, what do you think? I think that the only plausible options are 1 and 2, but I posted 3 and 4 for completness sake.

I think 4 is a plausible outcome; I doubt very much that every Democrat is going to vote in favor of a foreign military adventure.

That being said I think that the Military-Industrial Complex owns enough congressmen and senators to get the bill through both houses.

A lot of influential GOP senators are interventionists.

You can bet Anger's Quatloo safe on it, the Senate will pass it, guaranteed.

[DontSayBanana]

Seriously, Senate will do it, House is so obstructionist that even the lobbyists won't be able to clear out that logjam.

[jimmy olsen]

Languish seems rather split on the issue. I'm surprised that so many think the Senate won't vote for it. 

[Grey Fox]

Senate will agree & vote yes.

The congress won't vote. They couldn't agree on a vote to give themselves raises, they won't on this.

[CountDeMoney]

The Senate may vote on it and even pass it, but the House will table it and instead vote to repeal Obamacare for the 41st time.  And then, for the 42nd time.

[jimmy olsen]

Is it really neccessary to repeat yourself? We got it the first time.

[jimmy olsen]

I agree with the Israelis, if we do nothing it bodes very poorly for Iranian behavior in the future.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/09/01/syria_celebrates_obama_s_retreat_israel_worries_of_iran_implications.html

As Syria Celebrates Obama's "Retreat," Israel Worries of Iran Implications

By Daniel Politi
Posted Sunday, Sept. 1, 2013, at 10:59 AM

A Syrian state-run newspaper did not mince words Sunday, writing in a front-page editorial that President Obama's decision to seek congressional authorization for a military strike amounted to a "retreat" by the United States. "Obama announced yesterday, directly or through implication, the beginning of the historic American retreat," the al-Thawra newspaper said, according to Reuters. The newspaper also noted that Obama's apparent reluctance to launch a strike comes from his "sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies," according to the Associated Press translation.

Syria's Deputy Prime Minister Kadri Jamil was even more blunt, telling a Lebanese television network that Obama "was defeated before the war began," according to Israel's Arutz Sheva. The Syrian official added that the seeming back-and-forth from Washington "has made a mockery of the U.S. administration all over the world."

Meanwhile, in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized Israel's capability of confronting its enemies alone as many raised questions about the implications of Obama's delay on Washington's willingness to confront a threat from Iran, notes Reuters.

"Israel's citizens know well that we are prepared for any possible scenario. And Israel's citizens should also know that our enemies have very good reasons not to test our power and not to test our might," Netanyahu said, without ever mentioning Syria or Iran by name.

One of his ministers was less subtle. "In Tehran they are opening bottles of champagne, and surely shifting into high gear toward nuclear weaponization," Israeli Minister of Housing and Construction Uri Ariel wrote in a post on his Facebook page, according to Bloomberg. "Anyone who believes now this president will strike Iran only on evidence that the Iranians have crossed a nuclear red line, is probably hallucinating."

In the Times of Israel Avi Issacharoff writes that it's "unavoidable" to draw a connection between Iran and Syria:

    If after Assad's use of weapons of mass destruction to kill what Secretary of State John Kerry specified were 1,429 of his own people, Obama hesitates — when Assad has no real capacity to substantially harm American interests — what is he likely to do if Iran decides to develop nuclear weapons? [Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei and his advisers recognize that the likelihood of this administration using military force against a country with Iran's military capability are very low, if not nonexistent.

    And they're not the only ones who realize this. The same conclusions are being drawn by Hezbollah and al-Qaeda.

[CountDeMoney]

Is it really neccessary to repeat yourself? We got it the first time.

Wait until the 41st.

[garbon]

Is it really neccessary to repeat yourself? We got it the first time.

He only has a few lines, so give him a break.

[CountDeMoney]

When I start mixing them up is the time to worry.  Like the House voting on 14 year old girls.