Lawmakers who were briefed on the Syria intelligence by the administration this afternoon did not come away clamoring for war. They did, on the whole, seem convinced that the Assad regime is guilty of launching the attack, and that’s important and significant. Many, quite wisely, insisted that the proposed language authorizing force be further limited to prevent the administration from using a supposedly narrow authority to carry out a broader campaign.
But the main thing is that they saw the evidence and now face the same conundrum faced by the administration. In addition, they have to decide if they want to undercut the president even if doing so could have a deleterious effect of the nation’s ability to deter rogue nations from committing serious human rights violations or proliferating weapons of mass destruction.
At the same time, they are put in the position of policy makers and asked to use their best judgment about whether a limited punitive strike will create more problems than it solves. And the public has no appetite for a new front in the Middle East, which complicates their decision making.
Not an easy vote by any means. In some ways, the way the debate is being framed is downright bizarre. President Obama has already made the decision to arm at least some of the rebels in pursuit of a policy of regime change, yet he is insisting on carrying out a strike that will not be related to that policy but will instead be purely to maintain the taboo on using chemical weapons by any and all nations. This is the rub. I don’t think anyone really can separate the two issues in their minds.
For many, the whole idea seems to be to get us into the fight so we will feel compelled to see it through to the end. Why else would the Israelis be so furious about the delay? Why are the rebels so disappointed with the delay? They thought they had us on the hook, and the president wiggled away.
But, perhaps the disambiguation of the two issues (limited punitive strikes vs. proxy warfare in pursuit of regime change) can be furthered by having Congress severely limit what is authorized, allowing the president to plausibly claim victory for a strike that will do nothing to advance the overall Syria policy.
What a mess.
