President Barack Obama said on Saturday he has decided he should order a limited military strike against Syria, but in a move laden with political and diplomatic implications, he agreed in an about-face to solicit authorization for the mission from Congress.
Mr. Obama's announcement in a Rose Garden statement brought an unusually sudden halt to a military mobilization that for days had appeared on the cusp of a bombardment of Syria as punishment for its alleged use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21 that killed more than 1,400 people—including more than 400 children.
It also marked a jarring shift as president for Mr. Obama, whose senior aides have been saying that he would not seek congressional authorization and that he had the legal right to order the start of military strikes.
Mr. Obama said legislative leaders have agreed to hold a debate and a vote on the issue as soon as Congress returns, which currently is scheduled to be Sept. 9. Leaders in the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority, considered calling the chamber back to session before then.
The move places the president's Syria policy on an unknown course, subjecting it to a certain showdown on Capitol Hill where lawmakers are deeply divided on the issue and even more so over Mr. Obama himself.
By agreeing to a congressional debate, Mr. Obama faces some amount of risk that he will be handed a defeat by legislators, like that suffered by British Prime Minister David Cameron over Syria this past week.
By assuming that risk, Mr. Obama also faces the possibility of some consternation from U.S. allies, who have been pressed by the administration for support for its aims in Syria.
In Israel, President Obama's decision to postpone military action until after congressional approval was received with skepticism. Analysts on Israeli television blasted the president for making the U.S. appear weak in the region. An Israeli official warned that U.S. hesitation could embolden Iran's nuclear ambitions.
President Barack Obama was ready to order a military strike against Syria, with or without Congress' blessing. But on Friday night, he suddenly changed his mind.
Senior administration officials describing Obama's about-face Saturday offered a portrait of a president who began to wrestle with his own decision - at first internally, then confiding his views to his chief of staff, and finally summoning his aides for an evening session in the Oval Office to say he'd had a change of heart.
The ensuing flurry of activity culminated Saturday afternoon in the White House Rose Garden when Obama stood under a sweltering sun, his vice president at his side, and told the American public the U.S. should launch a military strike to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad for a chemical weapons attack the U.S. says killed more than 1,400 people last week.
But first, he said, he'll ask permission from Congress.
Russia dramatically escalated its denunciations of American threats to attack Syrian military targets on Saturday, with President Vladimir Putin saying it would have been “utter nonsense” for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons as the Obama administration alleges.
The Foreign Ministry, in a statement issued before President Obama said he would seek congressional authorization before ordering strikes on Syria, said a U.S. attack would be a “gross violation” of international law.
Speaking out for the first time since an apparent chemical weapons attack near Damascus on Aug. 21, Putin called on President Obama to find a nonviolent way out of the crisis.
“I would like to address Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate: Before using force in Syria, it would be good to think about future casualties,” Putin told Russian news agencies in Vladivostok during a tour of the country’s flood-stricken Far East.
“Russia is urging you to think twice before making a decision on an operation in Syria,” he said.
The White House argued Friday that intelligence shows more than 1,400 people died from exposure to chemical weapons in an attack carried out by the Syrian military.
Putin said he was sure the attack was the work of rebels trying to provoke international — and especially American — involvement in the Syrian conflict. The government of Bashar al-Assad, he said, would have had no reason to use chemical weapons at a time when it had gained the upper hand in the fighting.
Doing so, he said, would have been “utter nonsense’’ – with the clear implication that that is how he would characterize the American allegations.
On top of that, he said, the Obama administration’s “claims that proof exists, but is classified and cannot be presented to anybody, are below criticism. This is plain disrespect for their partners.”
Putin’s comments were soon underlined by a stern statement from the Foreign Ministry. After U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul had finished a meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Saturday, the ministry declared, “Russia has expressed its conviction that any forceful action against Syria that the U.S. could carry out in circumvention of the U.N. Security Council would be an act of aggression and a gross violation of international law.”
The Foreign Ministry, in a statement issued before President Obama said he would seek congressional authorization before ordering strikes on Syria, said a U.S. attack would be a “gross violation” of international law.
Speaking out for the first time since an apparent chemical weapons attack near Damascus on Aug. 21, Putin called on President Obama to find a nonviolent way out of the crisis.
“I would like to address Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate: Before using force in Syria, it would be good to think about future casualties,” Putin told Russian news agencies in Vladivostok during a tour of the country’s flood-stricken Far East.
“Russia is urging you to think twice before making a decision on an operation in Syria,” he said.
The White House argued Friday that intelligence shows more than 1,400 people died from exposure to chemical weapons in an attack carried out by the Syrian military.
Putin said he was sure the attack was the work of rebels trying to provoke international — and especially American — involvement in the Syrian conflict. The government of Bashar al-Assad, he said, would have had no reason to use chemical weapons at a time when it had gained the upper hand in the fighting.
Doing so, he said, would have been “utter nonsense’’ – with the clear implication that that is how he would characterize the American allegations.
On top of that, he said, the Obama administration’s “claims that proof exists, but is classified and cannot be presented to anybody, are below criticism. This is plain disrespect for their partners.”
Putin’s comments were soon underlined by a stern statement from the Foreign Ministry. After U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul had finished a meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Saturday, the ministry declared, “Russia has expressed its conviction that any forceful action against Syria that the U.S. could carry out in circumvention of the U.N. Security Council would be an act of aggression and a gross violation of international law.”
Other than clarifying that Congress would vote on US military involvement in Syria, US President Barack Obama’s last-minute announcement Saturday left viewers and pundits alike with more questions than answers.
Obama’s decision to put the vote to Congress virtually ensures victory — for the president, at least. If Congress rejects military action, he retains the moral high ground of intending to help, and of agreeing to legislative oversight, without facing the critique for the outcome of intervention. If Congress approves, he will have demonstrated moral and political leadership, and may even create an environment of improved Hill-White House relationships in the weeks before the looming budget and debt ceiling debates.
If the Republican leadership put the nail in the coffin of an early vote, it is unclear if the delay will benefit or harm the president’s case. But that, of course, depends on what the president’s real agenda is.
Obama emphasized in his address that Congress would hold a debate and vote on military action in Syria immediately after the legislature reconvenes. The scheduled date for the Congressional session to begin is September 9, a date that critics have already noted gives Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime an additional 10 days to hunker down before airstrikes.
His approval rating on how he has handled the issue of intervention in Syria is even worse – a grim 35 percent, according to the same NBC poll released Friday. Part of his real agenda must be to change that — but in what direction, given the 50% approval/disapproval rate for military intervention?
What he means to do depends largely on how his advisers have “read” his chances of getting the vote on intervention through both houses of Congress. If his advisers believe that the partisan politics of the capital city will take over, and the GOP will reject involvement, it could be that he is banking on the Republicans taking the fall for blocking an attack that he doesn’t want to carry out in the first place.
Obama has refused to answer questions about whether he will continue with plans for intervention if his resolution fails on the Hill, leaving a final note of ambiguity in an already hard-to-read political situation.
