Following President Obama’s rather surprising announcement yesterday that he would seek Congressional approval for the use of military force against Syria, attempts to identify how Congress would vote have become something of a cottage industry. Michael Tomasky, writing at Daily Beast, assumes that such a vote would, essentially, be along party lines which would mean tepid support for an attack in the Senate, rejection by the House:
In the Senate, I presume a resolution will pass. Obama might lose a very small number of Democrats, and maybe Independent Bernie Sanders. But he should get several Senate Republicans—McCain and Graham, their buddy Kelly Ayotte, probably Lisa Murkowski, Bob Corker, a few others who aren’t up for reelection this year and in hiding from the tea party. McCain and Graham will push Obama to do more than he wants, to do a strike that could lead to regime change, but one would hope they can agree on language to make both sides happy. Harry Reid said Saturday he’d try to bring the Senate back early for a vote, meaning it will say yes first, adding to the drama as we turn to the House.
There? Yesterday, I thought the chance the House would pass a war authorization for this president was about 0 percent. Today I’ve revised that up to about 5 percent. I think a certain number will be so favorably impressed/shocked by Obama’s decision to consult them that they’ll be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I still consider approval a real long shot, though. Consider first the number of possible Democratic defections. So far, we know that 18 Democrats signed a letter circulated by Republicans stating that a strike undertaken without congressional approval would violate the Constitution. That concern is taken off the table, so maybe those 18 will play ball. But you have to think that maybe a couple dozen of the most liberal members, representing districts where three-quarters of their constituents are telling them no, will vote against.
If I’m right about that, it would mean that Obama would need around 45 Republican votes. Possible? I guess. But keep an eye over the weekend on how ferociously the media wingnuts start whipping this vote. What’s Rush Limbaugh going to be saying? He is also bereft of the constitutional argument now, of course, so what’s his new excuse going to be and how hard is he going to push people to oppose a strike? Rand Paul and the other libertarians? The various tea party movements?
That’s consistent with the narrative of implacable Republican opposition to all things Obama but is it correct? My general impression is that the Republicans have actually been quite accommodating to the president in the areas of the military and foreign policy and such opposition as there’s been has largely been kibitzing, i.e. that he hasn’t acted decisively or violently enough, but no disagreement as to his course of action. Am I mistaken?
Writing at Mother Jones, Tim Murphy and Asawin Suebsaeng present a somewhat more nuanced analysis, dividing the Congress into several different groups—Republican anti-interventionists, Democratic doves, the GOP “Maybe-if-You-Ask-Nicely” caucus, a Democratic “Wait-And-See” caucus, the Marco Rubio “We-Waited-Too-Long” caucus, Republican hawks, and Democratic hawks. To those I’d add the Republican “I oppose Obama and all his works” caucus and yellow dog Democrats. Read the whole thing.
At Politico Seung Min Kim, John Bresnahan, and Jake Sherman go back to the history of Congress’s reactions to the Obama foreign policy and, generally, arrive at the conclusion that it’s complicated. Support and opposition go well beyond party lines and neither the House nor the Senate are sure things are either direction.
I honestly don’t know which way Congress will vote. The history of the last almost seventy years has been that members of Congress, more concerned about their own personal political good than the good of the country, have been reluctant to leave their fingerprints on any U. S. military action and I don’t think that has changed. Some are characterizing this as yet another master stroke by President Obama. It might just as easily be an exit strategy.
What does the president actually want to do? I don’t know the answer to that, either. If the president is determined to attack Syria, Congressional approval will give him cover to do it, even in the face of a lack of popular support. If the president is actually reluctant to attack Syria, Congressional disapproval will give him an out for not attacking Syria.
I sincerely hope that, whatever the president actually wants to do, his advisors have counted the votes in Congress for that before he announced he’d seek Congressional approval. IMO the worst possible outcome is that Congress will reject the president’s request at which point he goes ahead and bombs Syria anyway.
So, how will the Congress vote?
While I agree that Obama’s sudden deference to Congress, in asking for their authorization to engage in a military strike on Syria, has taken this bone of contention off the table, it still doesn’t clean up the mess that has created. Timing of a president’s decisions and consistency, IMO, are vital components in exercising competent leadership. President Obama has shown no real instinct or judgment in either of these areas, and consequently his presence, as well as our country’s influence, is becoming more obsolete and less important by the day.
I personally think Congress will vote in ways reflecting party control — The House saying “No”, and the Senate going along with their president. The energy behind these mixed votes, though, will be luke-warm, even maudlin and meaningless, as there is no real satisfactory way out of this. It’s been common knowledge that Syria has had chemical weapons, lots of them, for some time. According to Gordon Chang, N. Korea has helped them build two chemical plants, been sending them intercepted loads of gas masks, and advisors on how to use them. With this in mind, it would seem cautionary threats from the US should have been taken more seriously and implemented earlier, rather than later, after chaos has fully erupted and so much loss of life has occurred. Now that we are at the point of futile options, any military involvement will likely be seen as grandstanding rather than humanitarian. And, no military action will be taken as cold, heartless, and weak.
And, what does Obama do, but go off and have another wrack at the golf ball, as he prepares to embark on yet another world meeting, where his (our) authority will be diminished even further, by his see-sawing foreign policy decisions.
Yes, you are mistaken. The word you want is kibitzing, not kibbutzing. Hope that helps.
Thanks. Fixed.
Jan:
It was lousy choices from Day 1. That’s why most rational people (including both Dave and me as it happens) did not want to get involved. The choices didn’t become lousier, they’re the same lousy they’ve been.
What’s happening now has relatively little to do in some ways with Syria in and of itself. For whatever reason we (the broader we, not just the US) have decided chemical weapons should be off the table. We’ve more or less managed to maintain that prohibition for almost a century. We collectively don’t want to see backsliding on this.
We cannot simply attack because we know Syria has chem weapons because so do we, so do the Russians. So we draw the line at use rather than manufacture. Then, thanks to Mr. Reagan, we draw the line even more finely at use against civilians, because we all know we turned a blind eye to Saddam’s use against “military” targets during the Iran-Iraq War.
If you’re smelling hypocrisy, inconsistency and a degree of fecklessness in all this, you’re not wrong. But that aroma has been hanging around since at least the Reagan years. The US is a big fan of international law and norms. . . so long as they work for us. Laws are for the little people, dontcha know.
This will be a tough vote for the GOP. BFF ISrael wants the attack. The neocons and the theocons support Israel. Balance that against the desire to oppose Obama on everything to try to make him look bad. I think this will be a close vote.
Steve
Although I agree with much of Michael’s comment, above, the situation is even more cynical than he paints it.
The Russians almost unquestionably used chemical weapons against the Chechens. The Chinese have almost unquestionably used chemical weapons against the Uighurs.
So it’s not just the manufacture or possession or use against civilians that we consider unacceptable. It’s using chemical weapons against civilians if you don’t also have nuclear weapons.
steve,
Either the President is hoping Congress will vote no and give him a way out of his “red line” mistake, or he thinks AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby can whip enough votes in favor of bombing to give him cover. I don’t think he’s realized yet that if Congress actually does vote no it will solidify his appearance as a lame duck.
Ben- He has spent two years avoiding the pressure to get involved in Syria. I think he wants political cover for this, everyone needs to take responsibility, and will be pretty happy with either outcome, but a loss would be best. He would honor the vote, then resubmit after the next gassing. With enough chem attacks Congress will vote to intervene and/or some Arab countries will vote to intervene.
Steve
Wisecracks about one of the truly great statesmen of our times, Joe Biden, aside…….
This isn’t handicapping Congress but, various observations.
1. Handwringing about cynicicm or the actions of Ronald Reagan seems to me to be irrelevant. I’d call it concessions to reality………..and who is in charge now?
2. I’m still scratching my head over the “red line in the sand”
statement. As someone who negotiates for a living now for 20 years you don’t draw lines in the sand at that stage in a process. As all know, I think our president has almost no executive talent, but my god man, some surrounding him do and should surely have coached him to STFU before he made such a classic rookie mistake.
3. The Middle East, or at least since the so-called Arab Spring was released looks a complete mess. But is there not a rabbit to be pulled from the hat? “Shots across the bow” seem a silly action with no long term strategic effect. Better to do nothing. But if I understand it correctly the current queens and rooks in the chess game over there are Russia, Iran, Israel and Turkey………….with Syria and its internal opposition as bishops and knights if you will. The strategic landscape is changed in chess when you lose a bishop. Is there not a way to something of import vis a vis Assad without, speaking of reality, no “boots on the ground?”
I find Obama’s leadership style troubling and incomprehensible. No revelation there. However, what mystifies me more and more these days, is how so many of his party supporters continue to revel in his presidency, while at the same time rationalize and excuse where he is taking this country.
There is such an absence of coherency and commitment to almost everything Obama does and says. Even if you agree with the ideology he spews in speeches – universal HC, redistribution of wealth, unending affirmative action and a large ordained central government controlling everything and everyone – can his supporters really say this is working out for the good of all? Do we really have a HC system that is unfolding well and with popular support behind it? Do we have an economy that is authentically growing? Have our race relations gotten better under Obama’s bi-racial background and attempts to address our differences? And, as for our foreign policy and relationships abroad, have they been anchored with more respect, cooperation, or peace since that cowboy Bush left office?
How can one continue to affirm a ‘rock, paper, scissors’ kind of military gambit, playing out now in Syria, by our commander-in chief? From one day to the next there is an uneasiness of direction. To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question. It appears to be nothing more than ouija board politics going on with people who supposedly have all the intel at their finger tips. And, the people of this country seem to be no more than pawns in the hands of vacillating heads of state, who have all the power.
For me, it’s unsettling. For the rest of you, I guess the underlying thinking is that as long as such (mis)guidance is at the hands of a liberal leader, it’s all ok.
@Drew
… But is there not a rabbit to be pulled from the hat? …
Maybe, but as you know, you need to understand what is important to the other players. Most people do not have any grasp of what is happening, and many people have a feeble grasp.
Additionally, most people view the situation through a US domestic political prism, but the rest of the world does not. Hence, motives are ascribed to other countries based upon US interests. The Russians and Chinese are supposed to be worried about Iranian nukes because Iran could nuke them, but in reality, this is not a high concern to them.
… But if I understand it correctly the current queens and rooks in the chess game over there are Russia, Iran, Israel and Turkey………….with Syria and its internal opposition as bishops and knights if you will. …
Russia and the US are kings. Russia’s queen is Iran, and their rook is Syria. The US’s queen is Saudi Arabia, and their rook is Iraq. Russia is trying to improve their international standing and regional influence by castling. The US is trying to influence events in the Middle East, but they cannot castle because they sacrificed their rook. (I have probably mangled this as a chess analogy, but you should get the picture.)
Turkey and Israel are not directly involved militarily. For Israel, Assad being in control is probably better – “the devil you know …” The drawback is that Iran is strengthened. For Turkey, Assad is probably better because of the Kurds.
Lebanon is affected because of Hezbollah. Jordan is somewhat of a bystander, but they are susceptible because of proximity. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the UAE will be impacted by the outcome. Saudi Arabia and others are supplying arms and money to the rebels, but they are not directly impacted.
Iraq is somewhat like Jordaan, but they are mostly influenced by Iran. I think Russia is trying to sell Iraq arms, and I would they would like to have Iraq as a client state.
If you open an atlas of the Middle East, it should be obvious which country would allow you to have influence in the region. Without that country, your influence is limited.
This is the short version, and it will be disputed by many.
As an additional comment, I might add the irony of the new democratic coalition who is now railing and warring against Assad —Obama, Biden, Hagel, Kerry — the very ones who supported him, instead of Bush’s policy, which recommended isolating Assad. It’s ironical because there was all that vitriol against Chaney, Rumsfield for their pre-war friendliness to Hussein. Explanations dealing with ‘keeping your enemies close,’ or the rationale of choosing the ‘best of foes to support’, never proved to be legitimate reasons for those opposing consultants to Bush. But, now we are in a reversed universe, and the hypocrisy of turning against those you once courted seems to have evaporated, with the changing of the guard in the WH.
Tasty,
You paint a convoluted portrait of all the ME linkages.
@jan
It is a lot more complicated, but if you understand the underlying motives and goals, it begins to make sense. It is important to divorce yourself from a US centric viewpoint, but little of the analysts and pundits can/will do this.
A few posts back, @Dave Schuler linked to a graphic trying to capture the linkages. The problem with the graphic is that it is two-dimensional. It needs to be at least three-dimensional, but there really needs to be a multi-dimensional matrix. We would @Icepick’s mathematical expertise to map it out.
At one time, it was thought that solving the Israel & Palestine issues were the solution to Middle East (ME) problems. Most people can now see that the Israel & Palestine issues have little to do with the ME problems.
This poses a problem for US domestic politics because the ME as an issue for US domestic politics based upon the Israel & Palestine faultlines. For this reason, much of the US’s ME policy fails.
I don’t know how the vote will go, but I hope that representatives will cast votes on the merits, unlike many of the votes for war in Iraq in 2003 which were based on personal political fortunes….
Michael,
I see this point brought up a lot and agree with Drew that it’s largely irrelevant. The US provided intel on Iranian troop movements to ensue the Iranians wouldn’t win the Iraq-Iran war, knowing full well the Iraqi’s would use chemical weapons. Yes, it is hypocritical for the US to now condemn Syria for CW use. So what? Are you suggesting the US should be consistent one way or the other, or are you simply pointing out the hypocrisy for rhetorical effect? Ironic that these charges of hipocrsy don’t seem to include the countries that actually gave Iraq military hardware and the necessary precursor chemicals and manufacturing capability to create CW in the first place….
“Bush’s policy, which recommended isolating Assad. ”
Except when he sent prisoners there to be tortured.
Steve
Steve,
If you haven’t noticed, there are multiple consistencies and inconsistencies shared by both R and D administrations. What I was pointing out was that, politically speaking, Bush did not want to give Syria any global credibility, even if the rumor was that prisoners were sent there for painful purposes. However, Obama is showing no more tolerance or judgment by first crooning over Bashar, and now threatening to bomb him for reasons that have been known for some time.
I mean, how can you talk trash about aisle six when the next one over is leaking hypocrisy even more?
jan- Assad was not slaughtering his people and use chemical weapons 3-4 years ago. Assad was generally seen as having the potential for being a reformer when he took office. Israel and Syria were engaged in (mostly indirect) peace talks in 2008, and decided to wait until the new US president took office (Obama). If our BFF Israel was willing to negotiate with them, are you suggesting Obama should have tried to abort that? You ask for consistency that makes no sense.
Steve
“Assad was not slaughtering his people and use chemical weapons 3-4 years ago. Assad was generally seen as having the potential for being a reformer when he took office.”
Assad may not have been using chemical weapons or openly slaughtering people in earlier times. But, he has long been associated with various terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas — some currently leading lives in Damascus — as well as assassinations (Rafic Hariri in 2005) and attempts to destabilize Lebanon as recently as 2012. The Obama Administration extended a hand to him, in hopes that he was reformer material. And, Assad did throw some lines of help out in containing Al Qaeda. But, generally speaking, the Assad regime has been wily and untrustworthy, with a trail of terrorist involvment — all of which Assad denies, just like he is denying the use of chemical weapons today.
As for Israel’s reason for attempting negotiations with Syria, it was because they were the only major Arab state not to have reached some kind of peace accord with them. But this must have been an uneasy hand extension, because of Israel’s earlier accusations of Syria supplying weapons to Hezbollah.
Getting back to Dave’s original thread question about how the Congress will vote: I’m starting to change my mind about the House, given Boehner’s brief statement today, following the meeting with Obama. Boehner seemed to have a fluttering heart, just because the President decided to include Congress in some of these deliberations. So, now the Speaker is behind military action in Syria, and the arm twists begin.
Consequently, IMO, there is a better chance that the House will go along to get along, than there was just a day or so ago.
“Assad was not slaughtering his people and use chemical weapons 3-4 years ago. Assad was generally seen as having the potential for being a reformer when he took office.”
I guess he now suffers from back spasms or something and has become a bit cranky lately. Give the man some cyclobenzaprine and Prozac.
Jesus H. Christ. Israel should talk to anyone and kick the can down the road as best they can. We have advantages that do not force such a concession upon us.
@jan
If both parties were philosophically consistent, the Republicans would give President Obama a blank check, and the Democrats would require him to adhere to the War Powers Act (WPA). I expect both to act on politics not principles. There are a few from either side who are consistent, and I would expect both houses would approve his use.
The Republicans have carried on for years about the president being the Executive and Commander in Chief, and they have claimed that he has unlimited power. He is only to be restrained by cutting funding. According to Republican philosophy, President does not need to consult with or get approval from Congress. Hence, the House should be a slam-dunk.
The Democrats have carried on for years about the president being constrained by the WPA, but many do not want to be labeled as soft. A Republican president can count on getting enough Democratic votes to support him. A Democratic president should be able to get even more. Hence, the Senate should be a slam-dunk.
This is one of the rare opportunities for a litmus test. One either supports one’s past positions, or one is a political whore. This is going to be a freak show, and I am getting the popcorn ready.
Tasty,
Should I put you down as a ‘cynic?’ Lol