There are many GOP members who believe that 'fear' is what we need to instill in the world as a way of Americas military dominance over other nations. This is of course ridiculous since many countries will simply challenge those who attempt to use fear as a global tactic for dominance. It might work in the field of economics whereby a nation may hold back oil or other resources and use them as a tool of diplomacy. But even then it has limits to its usage. Fear as a tactic simply does not work. And President Obama is finding that out in his ongoing approach to the country of Syria and its apparent use of chemical weapons. Countries had no fear of FDR, or JFK, or Reagan or either of the Bush Presidencies. Which is why we ended up going to war again and again. Our posturing of power seems to have served as invitations to conflict. The lack of fear of America brought us Vietnam, Pearl Harbor, 911, Iraq War I and Iraq War II. And for President Obama drawing a "red line" against Syria, as a 'warning' and as a 'fear factor' has done nothing. In some ways it might have worsen the political and diplomatic landscape.
There are some things that we simply can't help but notice in the President's words and actions. It seems he has made up his mind to attack Syria! He intends to do so! Then why bother asking for congressional approval? It appears that this is a very clever tactic meant to hurt the GOP. Whether he did it intentionally or not, the fact is that the GOP is now caught in a huge dilemma regarding this issue. The party is divided by those on the far right like Lindsey Graham and John McCain who want to see a very aggressive punitive attack on Syria - one that might very well topple the al-Assad regime. On the other side the have the Tea Party folks such as Ted Cruz and Ran Paul who would like America to avoid getting involved in Syria's conflict. These are the isolationists in the GOP. We know the GOP is always out to "hurt" Obama! But it appears here the circumstances may end up politically hurting the GOP in what may be self-inflicted wounds.
The problem is that the GOP has to take one side or the other. It has to either go with the 'isolationists' Tea Party supporters or go with the Graham/McCain point of view which some people see as 'war mongering'. This decision is especially a problem in the House although it might be just the right issue to get John Boehner and others to push back on the tea party. By voting to support Obama and an attack in Syria, the House would be telling Ted Cruz, Ran Paul and other tea party followers that isolationism is not an option. On the other hand if the House votes to oppose Obama then House members will seem to be turning their back on the use of chemical weapons. This will hurt their armor of toughness and conservatism while at the same time alienating Tea Party followers. But that will not keep the President from attacking Syria. He will attack anyway! So what would the GOP do? Impeach him for confronting the use of chemical weapons? That's not going to happen!
It would seem that President Obama will come out on top either way. He can and probably will still attack Syria REGARDLESS of what congress decides. But only AFTER forcing GOP members into a furthering of division and conflicts withing the GOP itself. Whether the President set out to purposely do this is unknown. But this is the result of his decision to put the issue in the lap of Congress. President Reagan did nothing when chemical weapons were used in Iraq in the 1980s. So the GOP may decide to avoid any further involvements in Syria at this time. We know fear does not work! We know that because those nations that have 'warned' us, tried to 'scare' us and tried to instill fear in us - those are the nations that have been the subject of our military might. Scare tactics don't work! They simply provoke! So much for 'red lines'.