Update on Syria

Since Friday, a lot of events have occurred, many of them contradicting each other, so I thought that 48 hours later, it might be a good idea to take stock of what has happened.

So far, France is our only ostensible ally in this venture, should we decide to pursue it. Yes, should we decide to pursue it because Obama has hit the ball into Congress' court. Yes, the same Congress that has tried to repeal Obamacare 72,000 times because they feel they have nothing better to do. But, I digress.

On Friday, the Secretary of State, John Kerry - who I think is fantastic in this role both in terms of his assertiveness and how he has been differentiating his tenure from that of his predecessor, Hillary Clinton - made a statement for the world that was just short of chest-thumping: he declared that Bashar al-Assad almost certainly used chemical weapons; he called Assad a "thug and a murderer" and left little doubt that the missiles were being loaded and pointed at Damascus. Despite the aforementioned assertiveness, one would think the declarative nature of this statement meant that his thinking aligned with Obama's.

Obama, however, decided to throw a curve ball when he gave his Rose Garden speech on Syria yesterday. He opened the speech by essentially reiterating Kerry's analysis from the day before. He used plenty of Obamaesque pleasantries, like characterizing Assad's chemical massacre as an "assault on human dignity" and "the country will be stronger if we take this course." Yes, yes, yes, but what did he really say? Well, despite the previous day's events in London, the President was "mindful that he is President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy" and decided to toss the matter over for debate to a very hostile Congress, in hopes they would authorize some sort of action against Assad.

The President made clear that action "against regime targets" would be "limited in duration and scope" and would require "no boots on the ground". Since Congress is in recess until September 9 - because, really, what better things do they have to do? - he offered no timetable for execution of a mission, but said we are "prepared to strike whenever we choose" and since we have the ships and missiles in position already, we could make it "effective whenever we want". Despite Cameron's setback, a war-weary electorate, and this Congress, the President said he was "confident of [his] decision" and that any mission we do execute "does not need [UN] Security Council approval." This last remark was obviously a jab at Russia, which is Syria's patron and has made it clear that they would veto any plan put forward in the UN.

According to a story that has been making the rounds today, Obama was ready to start firing missiles at regime targets on Friday. However, after a walk on the South Lawn of the White House that evening with his Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, Obama came back inside the Oval Office, assembled his team, and informed them he was going to punt this issue to Congress for debate and, hopefully, authorization. I have to imagine Obama knew he was going to do this before the walk.

For one, this is classic Obama. It's a tough call and the majority of the American people do not want us to get involved. So, here's his choice: one, upset the electorate and fire some Tomahawk missiles at some regime targets which may or may not be strategic and may set the Syrian army back a little bit, but certainly not enough to do anything major or, two, stand by, do nothing, let Assad gas his own people with impunity, and embolden Russia. Sounds like a crappy choice to me. So, let Congress hold the bag.

Two, we apparently knew about a possible chemical attack at an unspecified time in the last year. If Obama was being briefed on chemical weapons available to and ready to use by the Syrian army, wouldn't he have by now arrived at a plan of how he would set the wheels in motion for a response to an attack with these weapons?

Three, the White House has been in constant contact with House and Senate leadership at least since Thursday.

I think Obama wants to take action, but is also mindful of the two wars we've been fighting for over 10 years and the backlash he got from some elements for bypassing Congress and helping Libyan rebels depose Muammar Gaddafi. I don't think he wants to stand by as Assad gasses his own people. I don't think he wants the US to suffer a crushing setback in international prestige, as an emboldened Russia and Iran would soar. I think the response to Assad's atrocities should be a relentless barrage of missile attacks against any military target our satellites can dig up. I think Assad needs to be punished and that Russia and Iran need to see that this guy isn't a pushover. Let's hope Congress doesn't cut off our international reputation's nose to spite Obama's face.