Obama wants Congressional approval for Syria strike

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden (AP)

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden (AP)

Delaying what had loomed as an imminent strike, President Barack Obama abruptly announced Saturday he will seek congressional approval before launching any military action meant to punish Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons in an attack that killed hundreds.

With Navy ships on standby in the Mediterranean Sea ready to launch their cruise missiles, Obama said he had decided the United States should take military action and that he believes that as commander in chief, he has “the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization.”

At the same time, he said, “I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course and our actions will be even more effective.” His remarks were televised live in the United States as well as on Syrian state television with translation.

Congress is scheduled to return from a summer vacation on Sept. 9, and in anticipation of the coming debate, Obama challenged lawmakers to consider “what message will we sent if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price.”

The president didn’t say so, but his strategy carries enormous risks to his and the nation’s credibility, which the administration has argued forcefully is on the line in Syria. Obama long ago said the use of chemical weapons was a “red line” that Syrian President Bashar Assad would not be allowed to cross with impunity.

Nor was it clear what options would be open to the president if he fails to win the backing of the House and Senate for the military measures he has threatened.

Only this week, British Prime Minister David Cameron suffered a humiliating defeat when the House of Commons refused to support his call for military action against Syria.

Either way, the developments marked a stunning turn in an episode in which Obama has struggled to gain international support for a strike, while dozens of lawmakers at home urged him to seek their backing.

Halfway around the world, Syrians awoke Saturday to state television broadcasts of tanks, planes and other weapons of war, and troops training, all to a soundtrack of martial music. Assad’s government blames rebels in the Aug. 21 attack, and has threatened retaliation if it is attacked.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying he was appealing to a Nobel Peace laureate rather than to a president, urged Obama to reconsider. A group that monitors casualties in the long Syrian civil war challenged the United States to substantiate its claim that 1,429 died in a chemical weapons attack, including more than 400 children.

By accident or design, the new timetable gives time for U.N. inspectors to receive lab results from the samples they took during four days in Damascus, and to compile a final report. After leaving Syria overnight, the inspection team arrived in Rotterdam a few hours before Obama spoke.

The group’s leader was expected to brief Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Sunday.

Republicans generally expressed satisfaction at Obama’s decision to seek congressional support, and challenged him to make his case to the public and lawmakers alike that American power should be used to punish Assad.

“We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised,” House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and other House Republican leaders said in a joint statement.

“In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9th. This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people.”

New York Republican Rep. Peter King was among the dissenters, strongly so. “President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander in chief and undermining the authority of future presidents,” he said. “The president doesn’t need 535 Members of Congress to enforce his own red line.”

Senior administration officials said Obama told aides on Friday night that he had changed his mind about ordering a strike against Syria without seeking congressional approval first, making a final decision after a long discussion with his chief of staff Denis McDonough.

It was unclear what pressure Republican or Democratic lawmakers had brought on Obama, if any, although dozens have signed letters calling on him not to act unilaterally.

But had he gone ahead with a military strike, he would have become the first U.S. leader in three decades to attack a foreign nation without mustering broad international support or acting in direct defense of Americans. Not since 1983, when President Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion of the Caribbean island of Grenada, has the U.S. been so alone in pursuing major lethal military action beyond a few attacks responding to strikes or threats against its citizens.

For now, it appeared that the administration’s effort at persuasion was already well underway.

The administration plunged into a series of weekend briefings for lawmakers, both classified and unclassified, and Obama challenged lawmakers to consider “what message will we send to a dictator” if he is allowed to kill hundreds of children with chemical weapons without suffering any retaliation.

At the same time, a senior State Department official said Secretary of State John Kerry spoke with Syrian Opposition Coalition President Ahmed Assi al-Jarba to underscore Obama’s commitment to holding the Assad government accountable for the Aug. 21 attack.

While lawmakers are scheduled to return to work Sept. 9, officials said it was possible the Senate might come back to session before then.

Obama said Friday he was considering “limited and narrow” steps to punish Assad, adding that U.S. national security interests were at stake. He pledged no U.S. combat troops on the ground in Syria, where a civil war has claimed more than 100,000 civilian lives.

In Syria, some rebels expressed unhappiness with the president, one rebel commander said he did not consider Obama’s decision to be a retreat. “On the contrary, he will get the approval for congress and then the military action will have additional credibility,” said Qassem Saadeddine.

“Just because the strike was delayed by few days doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen,” he said.

With Obama struggling to gain international backing for a strike, Putin urged him to reconsider his plans. “We have to remember what has happened in the last decades, how many times the United States has been the initiator of armed conflict in different regions of the world, said Putin, a strong Assad ally. “Did this resolve even one problem?”

Even the administration’s casualty estimate was grist for controversy.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an organization that monitors casualties in the country, said it has confirmed 502 deaths, nearly 1,000 fewer than the American intelligence assessment claimed.

Rami Abdel-Rahman, the head of the organization, said he was not contacted by U.S. officials about his efforts to collect information about the death toll in the Aug. 21 attacks.

“America works only with one part of the opposition that is deep in propaganda,” he said, and urged the Obama administration to release the information its estimate is based on.

Obama was buffeted, as well, by some lawmakers challenging his authority to strike Syria without congressional approval, and also by others who urged him to intervene more forcefully than he has signaled he will.

In the hours before Obama’s Rose garden announcement, he was joined at the White House by top advisers.

Vice President Joseph Biden, who had planned a holiday weekend at home in Delaware, was among them. So, too, were Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Secretary of State John Kerry and other top administration officials.

In the famously flammable Middle East, Israel readied for the possible outbreak of hostilities. The Israeli military disclosed it has deployed an “Iron Dome” missile defense battery in the Tel Aviv area to protect civilians from any possible missile attack from next-door Syria or any of its allies.

Missile defenses were deployed in the northern part of the country several days ago, and large crowds have been gathering at gas mask-distribution centers to pick up protection kits.

___

Associated Press writers Julie Pace, Josh Lederman, Matthew Lee and Kimberly Dozier in Washington; Zeina Karam, Yasmine Saker and Karin Laub in Beirut; and Geir Mouslon in Berlin contributed to this report.
___

Copyright  © 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Copyright  © 2013 Capitol Hill Blue

Enhanced by Zemanta

3 Responses to "Obama wants Congressional approval for Syria strike"

  1. Carl Nemo **==  August 31, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    This could be another WMD ‘scare bear’ tactic to create another zone of conflict in the Middle East.

    The question should be: Cui bono… Who benefits from this strike?

    The Saudi’s want an end to Assad’s regime, but don’t have the guts to do so themselves. They’d rather have their American ‘oil slaves’ do the dirty work.

    Israel would surely like to have the same outcome, but at U.S. expense in lives and treasure.

    The oil patch is slathering at the jaws for oil to spike to $150 plus per bbl with gasoline hitting the $5-6 range for the holiday season; I.E., a captive shopping market.

    We know the MIC’s sentiments on this; I.E., ka-ching ka-ching for their bottomline as usual.

    The problme with this chemical weps story is that it’s not been determined who was instrumental in launching the attack. The ‘rebel’ forces themselves could have done so in order gain quick and summary support for their cause which is to overthrow Assad’s regime; but, unfortunately replace it with a fundamentalist Muslim government as recently attempted in Egypt under Morsi. Our government seems to be failing miserably determining what elements will fill the vacuum for these toppled regimes.

    As I’ve proposed in an earlier article this could be a joint CIA/Mossad op to create tension where there should be none. The public is being duped again into supporting our now beligerant goverment’s offensive warring tactics. The White House has simply become a corporate facilitator for the MIC’s interests.

    I don’t care for this ‘tin pot’ dictator Assad & co. either, but to stir up a virtual ‘yellow jackets’ nest without a plan or protective clothing is quite foolish.

    There’s too many variables that could occur as a function of our loose cannon on deck “gunboat diplomacy” in these times.

    Possibly the most important reason we shouldn’t destabilize the region anymore so than we have to date is that we can no longer afford to wage wars of attrition against insurgents across the Middle East. It’s already wrecked our nation’s balance sheet. We’re headed for a budget crisis in October and these amateurs in the White House and seemingly those sitting on the NSC (National Security Council) don’t give a flying flip as to how we’re going to pay for these continued offensive wars that started under Bush/Cheney’s regime with the bogus invasion of Iraq. This President is acting more Bushlike than Bush himself regardless of him throwing a bone to Congress for approval.

    Our Congress, now ximply a ‘sovietski era’ styled politburo will more probably than not give Obama the green light to attack Syria. It will facilitate them going for another raising of the national debt ceiling in October thus kicking the budget crisis deficit issue down the road again. A freshly minted crisis with Syria is an excellent distraction from the resolution of our budget crisis.

    Are we going to run out of ‘enemies’ with oil reserves to attack?

    With the polar ice cap melting, vast new areas are being opened for oil/gas exploration.

    Heads up Canada! / : |

    Carl Nemo **==

  2. Pondering_It_All  September 1, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    Interesting political tactic for Obama: If Congress does not approve, it costs Obama nothing. Then when Assad commits the next atrocity (and he will), Congress gets the blame.

    This could break the strangle-hold Republicans have in The House, if the revulsion of the American Public is strong enough.

    • Alfred Supe  September 2, 2013 at 2:11 pm

      Yes, it is an interesting move on the Administration’s part.

      If Congress refuses to approve, and Assad comes up with more atrocities, and the American public feels enough revulsion, Obama wins and the Republicans lose.

      If Congress does approve and we wind up in another Iraq, The Republicans lose that way, too.

      Meanwhile, Obama has shown full respect for the clause of the Constitution that mandates that Congress is the one to declare war.

      Heads, I win. Tails, you lose. Nicely played, Mr. President!

Comments are closed.