Almost no one other than, possibly, the president himself believes his address tonight will move public opinion much. The national argument over attacking Syria continues with its proponents emphasizing, like Secretary of State John Kerry, how inconsequential the attacks will be, which hardly seem to me to be a selling point.
I’m baffled that people are persisting in dragging the red herring of hypothetical proposals across the trail when we have two actual proposals in written form. The first, which I’ve linked to before, is the administration’s request for authorization. It’s unlimited in duration, means, target, or objective. It could potentially include land troops, it could include bombing Iran. It’s discretionary.
The second is the authorization approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Foreign Relations Committee’s authorization narrows the timeframe of the authorization, retains its broad discretionary character, and expands the objective of attacks to “changing the momentum on the battlefield in Syria”, strengthening the rebels’ hand to force the Alawite regime to the bargaining table.
IMO the Obama Administration, prudently cognizant that once it has initiated hostilities against Syria its ability to control the outcome is quite limited, has requested maximum discretion. The proponents of attacking Syria need to defend what the administration has requested or what the Senate committee has approved. The administration could have requested an approval much more consistent with what it’s been saying but it elected not to do so. It’s what’s actually been requested that should be the subject of discussion rather than what we wish had been requested.
