Obama Says He Doesn’t Need Congress’ Permission to Strike Syria, So Why is He Asking for It?

The president is touting the decision as a win for democracy, but there’s a political payoff as well.

President Barack Obama stands with Vice President Joe Biden as he makes a statement about Syria in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, Saturday, Aug. 31, 2013. Obama said he has decided that the United States should take military action against Syria in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack, and said he will seek congressional authorization for the use of force. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
National Journal
Patrick Reis
Aug. 31, 2013, 2:19 p.m.

Pres­id­ent Obama said Sat­urday he’ll go to Con­gress for ap­prov­al be­fore launch­ing a strike against Syr­ia, but he also made it clear that he doesn’t be­lieve he needs any­one else’s per­mis­sion.

“While I be­lieve I have the au­thor­ity to carry out this mil­it­ary ac­tion without spe­cif­ic con­gres­sion­al au­thor­iz­a­tion, I know that the coun­try will be stronger … and our ac­tions will be even more ef­fect­ive” if the strike is au­thor­ized by Con­gress, Obama said Sat­urday in a tele­vised ad­dress from the Rose Garden.

So why is Obama ask­ing for au­thor­ity he already be­lieves he has?

It’s hardly a de­cision without down­sides. By go­ing to Con­gress, Obama is agree­ing to wait for days — and pos­sibly weeks — for le­gis­lat­ors to re­con­vene and vote. And, should Con­gress deny his re­quest, Obama will face sim­il­ar em­bar­rass­ment to what United King­dom Prime Min­is­ter Dav­id Camer­on faced after Par­lia­ment re­jec­ted his re­quest to use force in Syr­ia.

The mil­it­ary be­ne­fits are also dif­fi­cult to dis­cern, as it’s ques­tion­able that a strike against Syr­i­an Pres­id­ent Bashar al-As­sad will be any more ef­fect­ive be­cause it comes with Con­gress ap­prov­al. And to the Syr­i­an sol­diers and ci­vil­ians that bear the brunt of the at­tacks, the ap­prov­al of a far-off Con­gress is ut­terly ir­rel­ev­ant.

But by ask­ing per­mis­sion, Obama is throw­ing a bone to a con­sti­tu­tion­al camp he once cham­pioned but with whom he has since fallen far out of fa­vor. And — wheth­er he in­ten­ded to or not — the pres­id­ent just ex­trac­ted him­self from a polit­ic­ally per­il­ous po­s­i­tion and pushed his polit­ic­al ad­verser­ies in­to a no-win situ­ation.

The Law

The situ­ation in Syr­ia sent Obama in­to a leg­al ques­tion as old as the Con­sti­tu­tion it­self: When it comes to mak­ing war, can the pres­id­ent go it alone, or does he need Con­gress to open the gate?

Nearly all sides agree that the pres­id­ent has the au­thor­ity to de­fend the coun­try from a dir­ect at­tack, but no such con­sensus ex­ists on of­fens­ive mil­it­ary ac­tions, says James Lind­sey, dir­ect­or of stud­ies at the Coun­cil on For­eign Re­la­tions.

And Obama him­self seems to have taken a range of dif­fer­ent views. Pro­ponent of Con­gres­sion­al au­thor­ity cheered can­did­ate Obama in 2007 when he told the Bo­ston Globe:

“The pres­id­ent does not have power un­der the Con­sti­tu­tion to uni­lat­er­ally au­thor­ize a mil­it­ary at­tack in a situ­ation that does not in­volve stop­ping an ac­tu­al or im­min­ent threat to the na­tion.”

But that same camp has been dis­ap­poin­ted since, both by the Obama’s 2011 de­cision to au­thor­ize mis­sile strikes in Libya without con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al, as well as his ad­min­is­tra­tion’s ex­tens­ive use of drone strikes against al-Qaida op­er­at­ives — none of which were spe­cific­ally au­thor­ized by an act of Con­gress.

Sat­urday, Obama split the dif­fer­ence, claim­ing au­thor­ity to go it alone, but say­ing it strengthened the na­tion’s demo­cracy to make the de­cision in con­cert with Con­gress.

“I’ve long be­lieved that our power is rooted not just in our mil­it­ary might, but in our ex­ample as a gov­ern­ment of the people, by the people, and for the people,” Obama said in his Rose Garden ad­dress.

The Polit­ics

But while Obama is play­ing-up the Demo­crat­ic vir­tues of his de­cision, he’s quietly reap­ing some polit­ic­al perks.

Syr­ia is no longer just Obama’s prob­lem, as now that Con­gress has a hand in the de­cision-mak­ing, it will also suf­fer a share of the polit­ic­al con­sequences. And giv­en that there are no easy an­swers in Syr­ia, that’s a bur­den the pres­id­ent is happy to share.

Con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans now face a dif­fi­cult de­cision: If they suc­cess­fully lead a charge to vote down the mis­sile strikes, it will de­liv­er a high-pro­file re­buke to the pres­id­ent’s for­eign policy. But it will also leave them look­ing soft on a dic­tat­or who used sar­in gas on his own people, or even provide fod­der for Obama to ac­cuse them of us­ing for­eign policy for do­mest­ic polit­ic­al gain.

But if Re­pub­lic­ans provide the votes needed to ap­prove mil­it­ary strikes and Syr­ia, they will be wed­ded to the con­sequences.

It’s im­possible to di­vine what role the polit­ic­al cal­cu­lus played in the pres­id­ent’s de­cision, but the real­ity is in­es­cap­able: On Fri­day, Obama faced a no-win de­cision in Syr­ia. After Sat­urday, he won’t be fa­cing it alone.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×