The Obama administration seems to be moving toward some type of intervention in Syria in the belated recognition that we won't make things worse and that the outcomes with only Russia, Iran, and foreign jihadis intervening are all bad.
But the Obama administration is already on record as thinking that it needs Congressional approval to strike Syria. Does any Congress' approval count?
Al Qaeda jihadis have been a large factor in the Syrian rebellion for a while now. And now our intelligence agencies are saying the jihadis constitute a threat to our homeland:
Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper told members of Congress last week that Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda aligned group in Syria, "does have aspirations for attacks on the homeland." ...
In his testimony last week, Clapper said that American intelligence agencies had picked up indications of "training complexes" within Syria "to train people to go back to their countries and conduct terrorist acts, so this is a huge concern."
The retired Air Force general estimated that more than 7,000 foreigners from 50 countries - "many of them from Europe and the Mideast" - are fighting in Syria. He compared rebel-controlled parts of northern Syria to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, or FATA, where foreign and local militants have sheltered since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.
"What's going on there may be in some respects a new FATA," Clapper said. "And the attraction of these foreign fighters is very, very worrisome."
So, the situation in Syria is like the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2001.
We still fight in Afghanistan and we still kill jihadis with drones in Pakistan. These military actions fall under the authorization to use military force that Congress passed in 2001:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
We are facing in Syria groups that are part of the terrorist group that attacked us on September 11, 2001. Indeed, with al Qaeda Prime disavowing these Syria groups, these Syria-based groups are arguably worse than core al Qaeda.
Assad, by failing to control the jihadis, could be said to be effectively harboring these jihadis much as the Taliban who ran Afghanistan were targetted in October 2001 for refusing to turn over Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
And these al Qaeda-linked jihadis are training in Syria, gaining experience, and leaving Syria with the intent of launching attacks elsewhere, including here.
With it established by an intelligence finding that the Syrian jihadi rebels fall within the 2001 authorization to use force to protect our homeland, President Obama does not need to go to this Congress for permission to use force. And with his pen and phone, we will intervene in some fashion in Syria to affect the outcome.
If this Hill won't come to Mohammed, then Mohammed will go to another Hill.
UPDATE: Related. I think it is ridiculous that al Qaeda Prime's "expulsion" of ISIS would be a technicality upon which ISIS could avoid falling under the war resolution. Consider this a split in al Qaeda, since if ISIS wins their dispute they will certainly claim the franchise title and who will dispute it? Guys in hiding in Pakistan?
Silly me. I speculate we're trying to figure out how to put Assad under the war resolution. In reality we're looking for reasons we can't target ISIS (ISIL)? Amazing.
Just kill the jihadi bastards. Let them lawyer up in Paradise.
