Why is President Obama letting Congress decide if he will use a military strike to respond to President Asaad’s alleged use of chemical weapons on his own people? 1) It is the right thing to do Constitutionally; 2) It is the right thing to do Democratically; and 3) It gives the U.N. time to conduct and conclude their investigation, and perhaps decide how they would like to respond. But perhaps most importantly, the delay allows Obama to take the constitutional moral high-road while deflecting the future blame for starting World War III to the U.S. Congress!
But consider this, even if Congress tells Obama to sit on his hands, and France decides to go it alone, and attacks Syria (despite Asaad’s warnings), and then Syria counter-attacks France &/or Israel. What would happen next? Israel would go bat-cacca-crazy and would attack Syria and/or Lebanon, and then the U.S. would of course come to the aid of it’s Middle Eastern ally. Well, then Russia would likely respond (since their only seaport to the Atlantic is in Syria), and then Iran would get more directly and overtly involved. Then, who knows what China would do! Either way, we really would have the makings for the largest global conflict since WWII.
Then Great Britain (and other EU countries) would likely begrudgingly follow France, Israel, the U.S., and ironically the “Arab League,” and the Free Syrian Army forces into battle against President Bashar Asaad’s Syrian Government led military, with Iran, Lebanon, and Russia as the new “axis of Evil.”
However, one could expect North Korea might use the opportunity of the U.S. being preoccupied to finally strike out against their wealthy sister – South Korea, and China might likely strike out against her long-estranged daughter Taiwan, and Japan, and perhaps even the Philippines would be ripe for the picking with the U.S. busy elsewhere. But we would have to honor our own peace treaties and commitments to protect our allies in the region, so we would find ourselves at war with China at the same time we were at war with Russia and the Middle East! Talk about what a mess that might be! So when one looks at the bigger international picture, I guess President Obama has a very good reason to “punt” this political hot-potato to Congress, rather than implement a “one-man approach” military strike against a country that has not directly provoked the U.S. to ensure the international enforcement of a 100 year old chemical weapons ban treaty that the U.N. should be tasked with enforcing. The international picture is not looking so good for the U.S. to go around flexing it’s muscles every time a second-rate dictator does (or does not) decide to display his power in an internal civil dispute. We should at least determine if the chemical “evidence” of the bombings in Syria prove the government was involved and not the Rebels.