Making the case against Syria

President Obama was right to seek Congress’
approval on taking military action. But he also
must ensure that any such mission remains
limited.
Last week, the Obama administration was
signaling that it would take unilateral military
action against the government of Syrian
President Bashar Assad for what the
administration insists was the deliberate use of
chemical weapons to kill hundreds of civilians.
On Saturday, the president abruptly — and
appropriately — changed course, saying that
he would seek support in Congress for action
to “hold the Assad regime accountable for
their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind
of behavior and degrade their capacity to carry
it out.”
We agree with Obama that convincing proof of
widespread use of chemical weapons by the
Syrian government justifies a military response
— designed not to overthrow Assad but to
punish him for defying a century-old
understanding about the particular abhorrence
of chemical weapons. But we were critical of
the president for his seeming indifference to
the importance of obtaining assent from
Congress for military actions that do not
address an imminent threat to the United
States.
Obama has now rectified that flaw in his
approach. But there is a danger that in
securing the needed majorities, the president
might agree to more drastic action than is
necessary. We found it ominous that Sen. John
McCain (R-Ariz.), a longtime proponent of U.S.
intervention in the Syrian civil war, said after a
meeting with Obama on Monday that he was
now confident the president was planning an
attack “a little more robust than I thought.”
Another concern is that the draft resolution
released by the administration contains broad
language that could give rise to mission creep.
It says: “The president is authorized to use the
armed forces of the United States as he
determines to be necessary.” Congress
shouldn’t dictate to the president and his
commanders the precise number or timing of
cruise missile strikes, but the resolution
should be modified to make explicit what
Obama already has promised: that the U.S.
“would not put boots on the ground.” On
Tuesday, Secretary of State John F. Kerry
expressed an openness to such language.
Not all of the votes the administration needs
belong to senators and representatives who
agree with McCain; it also must obtain the
support of members of both chambers from
both parties who worry that a limited strike to
enforce the prohibition on chemical warfare
will mutate into an intervention reminiscent of
Iraq or Afghanistan.
Satisfying all of the factions in Congress on this
issue is a challenge comparable to the proper
alignment of a Rubik’s Cube. Ideally, the result
will be nothing less — but also nothing more —
than what Kerry called “a limited and tailored
response to ensure that a despot’s brutal and
flagrant use of chemical weapons is held
accountable.”
– Los Angeles Times