Better in their words…

Put me down as a “No!” vote on supporting military action against Assad. It’s not where this article ends up, but I do not believe we can continue to allow Obama to blame everything on someone else.
=============

By
KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

The most telling line in President Obama’s Saturday Syria address came near the end, when he (once again) lectured Congress about its duty to rise above “partisan differences or the politics of the moment.” Having put America’s global credibility at risk, Mr. Obama defaulted to the same political cynicism that has defined his presidency.

The commander in chief is in a box. His desperation to avoid military entanglement in Syria last year—in the run-up to the presidential election—inspired Mr. Obama to fumble out his “red line” warning to Bashar Assad on chemical-weapons use. The statement was a green light to the dictator to commit every atrocity up to that line and—when he received no pushback—to cross it.

Now trapped by his own declaration, Mr. Obama is reverting to the same strategy he has used in countless domestic brawls—that is, to lay responsibility for any action, or failure of action, on Congress. The decision was made easier by the fact that Congress itself was demanding a say.

That proved too tempting for a president whose crude calculus is that Congress can now rescue him however it votes. Should Congress oppose authorizing action against Syria, he can lay America’s failure to honor his promises on the legislative branch. Obama aides insist that even if Congress votes no, the president may still act—though they would say that. The idea that Mr. Obama, having lacked the will to act on his own, would proceed in the face of congressional opposition is near-fantasy.

Mr. Obama must figure that if he gets authorization, he nets two political wins. He provides himself cover for taking action, while simultaneously presenting Congress’s vote as affirmation of his flawed plan to lob a few missiles and call it a day. When that pinprick bombing has no discernible effect on Assad’s murderous campaign, Mr. Obama will note that this was Congress’s will. As he said in his Saturday speech, “all of us should be accountable” for Mr. Obama’s actions.

A congressional vote is all the more tantalizing to a president who lives and breathes rough politics, and who knows that this Syria debate will be particularly punishing for Republicans. The coming weeks will highlight the growing rift in the GOP between the traditional defenders of national security and the party’s libertarian-isolationist wing. While the latter does not yet occupy a large space in the GOP, its members are loud and wield much influence among the cranky conservative grass roots.

Those Republicans who might be expected to vote for a military strike will be pressured by the threat of primary challengers using that vote against them. They will likely be accused of helping Mr. Obama extract himself from his box. The president is going to enjoy this show, all the more so if it results in upheaval for Republicans in next year’s midterms.

Likewise, he will enjoy putting on the spot the GOP’s hawks, like Sen. John McCain, who have been merciless in their criticism of an Obama military strategy that will do nothing to end Syria’s civil war or depose Assad. With the authorization Mr. Obama has sent to Congress, he is forcing Republicans to choose between an inconstant strategy and a “no” vote that harms American interests. When did a U.S. commander in chief last so cynically play politics with American credibility?

Finally, Mr. Obama is betting that the GOP rift will divert attention from the most pertinent aspect of this debate: the extent to which his own party abandons him. The president’s withdrawal from the world stage—his exit from Afghanistan and Iraq, in particular—has nurtured the Democratic Party’s worst instincts and left it even more resistant to a call for military action. Mr. Obama is counting on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to corral votes for him, but the liberal Democratic wing is not a sure bet.

Americans do not want to think that the president is making grave decisions about military action and U.S. standing on the basis of political calculation. Yet Mr. Obama has treated Syria as a political problem from the start, viewing it almost solely as a liability to the administration’s public-opinion polling, its presidential electioneering and its rival domestic priorities. Viewing Mr. Obama’s punt to Congress as anything but political is almost impossible. And yet the president again lectures Congress to rise above the “partisan” politics that he has, with great calculation, dumped on them.

The challenge for Republicans is to do just that, to remember (no matter how painful) that this is not a vote about the president or his machinations.  [It isn’t?  I am not so sure about that.]  The only question before Republicans is this: Will they send a message to the world’s despots that America will not tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction? If they will not send that message, they risk complicity in this president’s failed foreign policy. [Why? I don’t think Ms. Strassel’s logic holds up to her conclusion.]

Ms. Strassel writes the Journal’s Potomac Watch column.

A version of this article appeared September 3, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Politics Of the Obama Delay on Syria.

Kimberley Strassel: The Politics of the Obama Delay on Syria – WSJ.com.