Mo Udall once said, “Everything that needs to be said has been said. But not everyone has said it.” So please allow me the opportunity to add my two cents on the Syrian debate.
After weeks of pondering, President Obama has decided that it’s his intention to authorize air-strikes in Syria. But there is one major caveat: Congress must give him it’s blessing to do so first. And while no one ever said it would be easy, that mission has proven to be more of a kamikaze ride than anyone had thought — and it’s multiplying by the day.
It should have been expected. Involving Congress in the first place was a colossal error, for several reasons.
First, the obvious. it may be overly simplistic to state that Obama has weakened his hand on Syria. The fact of the matter is, by punting to Congress, Obama has weakened his hand on virtually everything that may involve military force — for himself and his successors. And that’s without even figuring in the increasing likelihood of rejection. If it occurs, it will present both a dilemma, and a quagmire that could easily have been avoided.
Not only would a loss be a major setback for Obama as a leader, but it would leave him in the position of having to decide whether should bypass Congress which, ironically, is what he was trying not to do.
The fact of the matter is, Obama had the opportunity to put to govern by the muscular Kennedy mantra, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden…in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Those words inspired a generation of Americans and despite setbacks in putting those words to the test, that ideal still thrives.
That said, I understand the rationale of what Obama is trying to do. He doesn’t want to own the war in it’s entirety. Is that understandable? Yes. But you know that saying about what to do if you are unable to stand the heat, and in the case of simple air strikes, Congress really has no business being asked to get involved.
That’s not to suggest that the Legislative body can’t and shouldn’t offer its opinions. On the contrary. Congress can and has weighed in on foreign policy decisions intricate and small. And, they have made their opinions known both before and after it was asked (both Iraq Wars, Afghanstan, etc). But approval for air strikes is completely and utterly unnecessary. Ordering a similar mission in Serbia in 1999 for example did not require authorization.
The truth of the matter is, America cannot have 536 Secretaries of States. I don’t dispute that most of these people want to be Secretaries of State but it is not designed to be that way. This is a Presidential level decision.
I understand why Mr. Obama can be convinced to make the decision to involve Congress. After all, despite being President for nearly five years, he is hardly a product of Congress and is relatively new to the ways of Washington. But Vice-President Biden, Secretary of State Kerry, and Defense Secretary Hagel are veterans of government. They’ve long been dealing with intricacies and practicalities.
Furthermore, will a future President be less hesitant to approach Congress if the call is necessary? You bet it will. And that’s unfortunate because that’s a primary responsibility of a Commander-in-Chief.
If Congress does say no, what is Obama to do. Another occurrence is that Obama has been stung with public opinion. Multiple polls show that 2/3 of the American people oppose action in Syria. While that may have been the case even if Congress had not been involved, the volume of opposition would have been less stinging had a full throttle debate not been taking place. And imagewise, that hurts as much as anything.
A prime criticism during the Gulf war was that America was to gung-ho for going into battles alone. Now, however, Obama has created a different dilemma. A possibility that he may still go in alone, only this time, it wouldn’t just be without the world, but without even his Congress. And since we’re simply talking about airstrikes, that is both unfortunate and unnecessary.
In closing, this argument has been compromised by the fact that Americans are weary of war, or more precisely, getting mired in another endless war. I understand that. But again, a bombing mission is far different from boots on the ground. I think the odds of the latter happening are extraordinarily unlikely.
That said, even if the impact to the Syrian regime is limited,let’s take a stand and show the world atrocities on fellow citizens won’t be tolerated. That alone would truly be mission accomplished.
congress photo via shutterstock.com