President Obama announced that Congress would debate Syria when it comes back and would have a vote on authorizing the use of force against Syria.
Does this mean that President Obama wants an excuse to avoid military action after failing to gain any international support (I mean, other than from France)?
Or might it mean that President Obama has shifted from speaking of chemical weapons red lines to an earlier statement that Assad must go? Might the Pentagon have argued for effective military action rather than symbolic action?
The latter, if it involved direct American intervention, would require so much more military effort that Congressional backing would possibly be necessary but definitely wise. Congress is in no mood to let President Obama pull a Libya War again with no Congressional input.
Although don't get carried away with the value of Congressional approval on take-off.
I honestly have no idea what President Obama has in mind. He's no longer in a rush, it seems, unless this is just a ruse to regain tactical surprise sometime tonight. Could Congressional leaders have agreed to this in today's talks?
UPDATE: The president has put forth a draft resolution authorizing the use of force. Oddly, the only thing that President Obama cares about is the chemical weapons issue.
And disappointingly, the president wants to send our forces into battle against Assad's military and goons not as a war where we pursue victory but in order to help Assad survive by convincing Assad to negotiate a settlement with rebels (from the resolution):
Whereas, the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the fonflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the Geneva process.
That's a riot. The president is unwilling to go to conference committee to work out differences between Senate and House legislation, but for the civilian-gassing Assad, talk is the only solution. With the invitation delivered by cruise missiles. Sadly, Assad seems to be seeking victory through the chemistry process.
So there you go. An authorization to mis-use force. This will work out just swell.
UPDATE: Isn't the legalistic focus on the Chemical Weapons Convention (ratified by 188 states, the resolution says) undermined by the fact that Syria has not signed or ratified the convention, and therefore can't possibly be in violation of a treaty it has not agreed to?
