I had just published an earlier version of this diary when it was announced that Obama was about to make a public statement. That statement required some revisions, so I took the diary into the shop and made some changes. Obama has now decided to wait until congress is back in session and to seek congressional authorization for military intervention in Syria, while maintaining that he still believes that he has the legal authority to proceed without such authorization. He has made a political decision rather than a legal one.
More information about the change in plans is emerging. From The Guardian
Journalists are emerging from a background briefing with "senior administration officials" at the White House. CNN's Jim Acosta reports that the president came to his decision to consult Congress only at 7pm last night, and discussed it in a walk in the White House garden with his chief of staff, Denis McDonough. When Obama shared it with his national security team, there was a "robust discussion", according to Acosta, as his advisers were mindful of the risks involved in consulting a sceptical Congress.
Kerry's speech yesterday had all the earmarks of a sales pitch to convince congress and the public of the necessity for immediate military action. Obviously White House staffers were frantically looking at chicken entrails and reading tea leaves in an attempt to divine the reaction to the pitch. One of the things that they would have heard is a definite push back from various congressional backbenchers in both parties. They cannot have been oblivious to the humiliating defeat suffered by David Cameron at the hands of his own coalition. Obama's statement today was clearly a decision to back off and take a different approach.
The existing legal framework for this difference of opinion is the War Powers Resolution. It was passed in 1973 in an effort to rein in the excesses of Nixon's bellicosity in Southeast Asia. It has been a murky and contentious issue ever since and none of the players have ever been really happy with the arrangement. There is an ongoing debate over its constitutionality. The issue has never come directly before SCOTUS. Various congresses and presidents have played games of tag about it. The only thing that is clear as a practical reality that money to fund a military operation beyond the annual defense appropriation requires the act of congress. For limited operations like the one being presently contemplated that is not an issue. Had Obama chosen to proceed with a military intervention without congressional authorization, it seems very unlikely that there would have been legal consequences to follow.
What Obama does have on his hands is a political problem. This is not the standard D vs R script of Obamacare or tax bills. We are seeing a coalition here somewhat similar to the one that almost passed the Amash-Conyers amendment to defund NSA bulk data collection. Conservative/libertarian Republicans are joining forces with liberal Democrats to oppose the plans of the centrist power brokers in both parties. It would seem that Obama is optimistic that he will be able to prevail in obtaining a vote for congressional authorization. Democratic representatives and senators who oppose military intervention will be in for some major arm twisting.
Presidents from both parties have historically vigorously attempted to preserve the powers of the office in confrontations with congress and the courts. They have typically seen it as their duty to pass on the legacy they inherited to their successors. The power of the commander in chief to conduct foreign policy and take military action is absolutely central to that legacy. Nixon over played his hand resulting in constraints being imposed. Because of the political impact of 9/11, Bush was in the political position that he was confident of his ability to obtain congressional authorizations for the most ambitious military adventures since Vietnam and he did so. Nobody accused him of being weak and indecisive.
It doesn't seem to require much of a stretch to draw parallels between the situation in Washington and that in London. Whatever the truth about events in Syria, the shadow of Iraq looms over the present leaders of the nations who got into that mess. The situation is somewhat like the political climate in the US after the disaster of the Vietnam war. Until 9/11 no US president could have much confidence of his ability to lead the nation into another war. It looks like the world is finally waking up to a post Iraq world.
Barack Obama finds himself in a situation where he is holding the legacy of American presidential power in his hands. I'm not sure just how critical Syria in and of itself is in a geopolitical sense. However, this does look like a particularly interesting point in US political events. The vote taken Thursday night under Big Ben is being seen as having historical significance. It is possible that what happens between the president and the congress may as well.