CHRIS CILLIZZA WASHINGTON POST
President Obama’s stunning reversal on Syria — deciding to send a use of force resolution to Congress to approve or disapprove just hours after he seemed set on bypassing the legislative branch — amounts to a massive gamble by the commander in chief.
As we have noted in this space, there is little certainty of the outcome of the vote, which will come, at the earliest, the week of Sept. 9 when both houses of Congress return to Washington after the August recess. And, if Congress doesn’t pass the resolution, Obama will be in an even smaller box — policy-wise — than he found himself at the end of last week following the British Parliament’s rejection of a similar use of force resolution.
Lets’s start by walking through just how big a challenge Obama has built for himself.
First, consider that roughly 40 percent of House Democrats voted against the use of force resolution against Iraq in 2002. (Unlike 2002, Democrats have one of their own in the White House, but the 2010 election has made the caucus more liberal today — and more opposed to military action — than it was in 2002.)
Second, remember that Obama is in the middle of his second term. He is playing for his legacy; all — or at least the vast majority — of the Democratic members he will ask to vote in favor of striking Syria are playing for the 2014 election. Those are two very different calculations — especially when you consider that many of the Democrats Obama will need are running in districts where the only real threat is from their ideological left. Voting for a controversial military action is perfect fodder for a liberal challenger looking for an issue to take down a Democratic incumbent.
Third, Obama’s relationship with Congress — including those within his party — has never been all that great. He spent little time there during his own career and Democratic House strategists have long believed that Obama is semi-openly disdainful of the people’s House. And, having a long-time Senate aide — Denis McDonough — as his chief of staff won’t help Obama much in the House either. (The perfect chief of staff for this moment in the House is currently serving as the mayor of Chicago.)
Fourth, the shadow of Iraq looms. You can tell how much by listening to Secretary of State John Kerry make the case for action in Syria on Friday. “Our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack,” Kerry said. “And I will tell you it has done so more than mindful of the Iraq experience. We will not repeat that moment.” The question is whether Kerry’s testimony in front of House and Senate committees this week can convince lawmakers of that fact. And, because of how Iraq (and the lack of WMDs) played out, the hurdle is that much higher.
Fifth, the “why now/what now” question remains a tough one to answer for many members. Yes, use of chemical weapons is a clear line that has been crossed. But, more than 120,000 Syrians have died since Obama first called on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step aside, and most foreign policy experts believe any strikes launched by the United States will be extremely narrow in both their scope and length.
Despite all of those factors arguing against passage, Obama pushed forward for a vote, believing – according to behind-the-scenes reporting done by The Post’s Scott Wilson — that if he end-ran Congress on this issue he might lose any chance to work with them on things like the looming government shutdown and the debt ceiling.
That makes sense if the resolution passes. But, if it fails and Obama goes forward with a military action anyway — as Administration officials have made quite clear they believe he can and might do — relations with Republicans in Congress (and, in truth, many Democrats) will be even more strained.
Republicans in Congress have long argued that the president is far more interested in using them as a political foil than in actually accomplishing things in a bipartisan matter. If he were to ignore a vote against the Syria resolution, the lack of trust that already exists between the GOP majority and the White House will disappear entirely — almost certain to not return in time for the government shutdown/debt ceiling fights.
Add it all up and it’s plain to see just how big a gamble Obama is taking — and just how large the political stakes are for him if he loses.
[And now, with that perspective in mind, here is the HUFFINGTON POST report on the day's activity:]
Obama Lobbies For Syria Vote Employing 'Flood-The-Zone' Strategy.
By Jeff Mason and Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON, Sept 2 (Reuters) - After putting a decision to launch military strikes on Syria into the hands of Congress, President Barack Obama is doing what his critics have long accused him of failing to do: reaching out, personally and aggressively, to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
While top lieutenants including Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry lobby their former congressional colleagues, Obama is making individual calls himself to members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to press his case for action.
What Obama has not done since he made his announcement Friday is appeal to the public, which both Democrats and Republicans say will be crucial as polls show little enthusiasm for U.S. military action anywhere.
A vote against strikes to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for alleged use of chemical weapons, officials argue, could undermine Obama's standing in the Middle East as his administration seeks to deter Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians and stabilize a region already in turmoil.
Obama won conditional support Monday from two of his fiercest foreign policy critics, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
"A rejection of this resolution would be catastrophic, not just for him but for the institution of the presidency and the credibility of the United States," Senator John McCain said after meeting with Obama at the White House on Monday.
But despite Obama's effort to assuage the two senators' concerns, neither appeared completely convinced afterward. They said they'd be more inclined to back Obama if the U.S. sought to destroy the Assad government's launching capabilities and committed to providing more support to rebels seeking to oust Assad from power.
McCain said Tuesday he is prepared to vote for the authorization that Obama seeks, but the Arizona Republican also said he wouldn't back a resolution that fails to change the battlefield equation, where Assad still has the upper hand.
In an appearance on NBC's "Today" show, McCain called it "an unfair fight" and said that if the authorization for U.S. military intervention doesn't change the balance of power, it "will not have the desired effect."
Mindful of those stakes, the White House has employed a "flood the zone" strategy, according to an administration official, using an American football term for an offensive move where players flood an area of the field to overwhelm the opposing team's defenders.
The evidence of that strategy: an onslaught of briefings, calls and meetings with lawmakers from both political parties.
On Monday National Security adviser Susan Rice, Kerry, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and the top U.S. military officer, Martin Dempsey, held an unclassified briefing call for Democratic House members, and Obama met with McCain and fellow Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.
On Tuesday Obama will meet with the chairs of key national security committees in Congress and Kerry, Dempsey, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel will testify to the Senate foreign relations committee.
"In all calls and briefings, we will be making the same fundamental case: The failure to take action against Assad unravels the deterrent impact of the international norm against chemical weapons use," a senior administration official said.
"It risks emboldening Assad and his key allies - Hezbollah and Iran - who will see that there are no consequences for such a flagrant violation of an international norm. Anyone who is concerned about Iran and its efforts in the region should support this action," he said.
CONSULTATION, AFTER THE FACT
Obama has stepped up his interactions with lawmakers this year, holding dinners and building relationships that critics say he lacked.
But any goodwill he has obtained from that effort is limited, and one Republican aide noted on Monday that Obama had only come to Congress after already articulating a decision that strikes were necessary.
"They're certainly doing more, but it's after the fact. They already made a decision on what they want to do," a senior Senate Republican aide told Reuters.
Running parallel to the White House contacts with Congress are conversations that senior Democratic and Republican senators are holding in an attempt to get a resolution passed in the full Senate.
The aide said the Democratic chairmen of relevant Senate committees were consulting with the highest-ranking Republicans on those panels to try to work out language that could pass the Senate next week.
Passage in the Republican-controlled House remains much more problematic, with lawmakers expressing skepticism about U.S. involvement in another war as well as the effectiveness of the limited strikes that Obama has proposed.
AL KAMEN WASHINGTON POST
But House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have said they favor authorizing airstrikes, and the measure will be brought to the House floor for a vote. If the Democrats eventually rally behind Obama, he won’t need to pick up much GOP support.
And if key House Republicans prove difficult, Vice President Biden might want to note the spectacular move by his predecessor Dick Cheney before the 2002 vote. Cheney — according to our colleague Barton Gellman’s excellent book “Angler: the Cheney Vice Presidency” — gave a very reluctant Dick Armey (R-Tex.), then the House majority leader, a private briefing in which Cheney claimed that Hussein was looking at making suitcase nukes that he could share with his terrorist pals.