President Obama has decided to ask Congress for authorization to launch a limited military strike against Syria for that country’s alleged use of chemical weapons last month that killed more than 1,400 people, including 400 children.
The decision to go to Congress represents a significant shift for the President, whose administration had let it be known last week that a missile strike against the Assad regime was imminent.
It is appropriate that the elected representatives of the people should have a public debate about the issue. Unfortunately, what passes for debate in American politics these days is practiced sound bites and talking points.
Our country could take a lesson from Britain. Last week, Parliament quickly assembled and members went toe-to-toe with Prime Minister David Cameron and ultimately voted 285 to 272 against military intervention.
The President and Congressional leaders should have acted with a similar sense of urgency. Instead, the President said Saturday that he and legislative leaders have agreed to wait until Congress returns on September 9th.
This administration has been all over the board on Syria. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Sunday called the President’s policy “confused and muddled.”
For two-and-one-half years, the U.S. kept its distance from Syria, with the President saying the civil war was an internal matter. However, he put down a marker by saying any use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line.”
That left no other option for the President after Assad’s regime apparently attacked a neighborhood near Damascus with deadly sarin nerve gas, but now by going to Capitol Hill, the President risks failing to get Congressional approval for a military response.
Polls show Americans skeptical of military action. An NBC poll found half of Americans opposed to intervention, with 42 percent saying they support a strike. The numbers in support of action rise, however, when responders were told the military action would be limited to air strikes using cruise missiles meant to destroy military units.
But the kind of strike being discussed would not come close to destroying Assad’s military capabilities, or even his capacity to use chemical weapons again. Instead, it’s supposed to send a message to the regime.
Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer said, “Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing, a serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose.”
The larger question is whether the United States is willing to take further and more significant military action depending on the Assad response. What if there’s another chemical attack? What if Iran fires a missile into Israel?
At least we are apparently going to get a full Congressional debate, where those for and against military intervention can put their best arguments forward and the American people can decide for themselves what they believe is the best course of action.