Ross Douthat's column in today's New York Times "War, What is it good for?" offers a fictional version of what Obama would say about Syria if he could be honest. It’s not about humanitarianism. It’s not about any threat to the U.S. It is about the role that the U.S. plays in the world and has played since 1945. He imagines Obama saying:
But what the view from this office has taught me is that real stability still depends almost exclusively on the United States military’s monopoly on global force. Multilateralism is a nice idea, but right now it’s the Pax Americana or nothing. There’s nobody else prepared to act to limit the ambitions of bad actors and keep them successfully boxed in.
Although I hate to agree with a conservative like Douthat, this may be exactly what Obama is thinking. He is obviously far more reluctant to use military force than Bush but he does, in my view, believe that the U.S. must be the world’s policeman. A cop can ignore many petty crimes but if someone openly defies his authority, no cop can afford to back down.
As to why Obama now seeks congressional approval – I think the same reasoning applies. If Obama strikes Syria now, there is a real risk that his opposition will start up the impeachment process and this will cripple the president for the next 3+ years. Launching a war without congressional approval is, after all, a clear violation of Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. Although this clause has been violated with impunity for decades, that does not mean that today's Congress will not seize upon it and launch an impeachment. And such an effort would attract not just Republicans but many liberal Democrats.
Obama has to be mindful of the Clinton example and how much the last impeachment circus weakened the presidency. When Clinton did strike back after the embassy bombings and the Cole attack, the Republicans accused him of trying to distract the public from the oh-so-serious Lewinsky affair.
And who is to say that the distractions and weakness of the impeachment crisis may not have emboldened Bin Laden? He did reportedly say that the 9/11 attacks would cause the whole U.S. to fall apart just like the old USSR - and this idea would have seemed quite reasonable when the U.S. leader was being continuously humiliated at home in ways that would strike someone like Bin Laden as remarkably insulting. What nation could endure, he probably thought, when the ruler's sexual habits were a cause for continual public mockery? (see Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower; Al Queda and the Road to 9/11)
From the Oval Office, the risk of a weakened presidency at home may be an even graver risk than that of looking weak to the Syrians. Even if the Congress prevents a strike on Syria, that will weaken the presidency far less than a prolonged impeachment crisis. A cop may not want to back down to a street corner thug, but he also knows that if his supervisor takes his badge away, he won’t be able to do a thing to deal with the next thug he runs into.
You can say that the United States should not be the world’s policeman or that we have no right to meddle everywhere disorder arises. This was the view of isolationists between the world wars and it is the view of Rand Paul today. I have often expressed this same point of view myself. But what is the alternative?