Why seek congressional authorization on Syria?

Regardless of whether they support or oppose U.S. Intervention in Syria, those who believe in the rule of law and limited government were awarded a stunning victory when president Obama announced that he would seek authorization from congress to use force against Syria. Obama should be commended for not turning his back on a major campaign promise, and for respecting congress' constitutionally mandated power to declare war, something that many of his predecessors have unfortunately neglected over the past half century. One may even wonder why Obama himself did not seek congressional approval for limited airstrikes against the regime of Muhmmar Gaddafi in Libya during the early stages of the Arab Spring. Much like Syria, this was a United States lead intervention in which the the goal is punitive airstrikes with no expectation of “boots on the ground.” So why the sudden decision to seek approval from congress?



Obama made it clear during his Rose Garden speech that his decision was not based on any legal requirement “I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization.” Instead he submitted a more pragmatic political reason for passing authority to congress, stating “I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual.” It is interesting that Obama seems to think the country would benefit from this debate before going to war now, and not two years ago in Libya. Obama neglects to mention another reason why he might think he needs congressional approval. The former secretary of defense Leon Panetta stated in congressional hearings that if the there was a UN or NATO resolution to use force against a country then the administration believed that was sufficient authorization of force. In the case of Libya there was a U.N. Resolution, but today with Syria there is not.



Perhaps another reason for seeking congressional approval now, is that unlike Libya in 2011 Syria is not strategically isolated and has several allies that closely support it. Russia has not only given military support to Assad and spoken out against any potential use of United States force, but also has a naval base in Syria. Iran is also a close ally of Syria, and backs Hezbollah which could launch attacks against Israel in retaliations for any U.S. Strike. While somewhat remote the potential for a large scale regional war exists. Given the risks it is prudent for Obama to seek authorization from congress in order to share in and deflect responsibility if airstrikes cause a new Mideast conflagration.

Furthermore, Congressional authorization would establish better grounds for a protracted campaign of sustained airstrikes against Damascus. Given that a single volley of cruise missiles is likely to do little to change the strategic situation for the rebels on the ground, authorization from congress would be an upfront circumvention of the War Powers Resolution which limits Presidential use of force to a sixty day time period. While ostensibly, regime change is not on the table, the previous Secretary of State was on the record stating “Assad must go,” and Kerry himself has been at the forefront of pushing for war against the Assad regime. It seems that regime change is likely a ulterior motive for attacking Syria.