I had a robust list of topics I was going to write about after Labor Day, but how can one write this week about anything other than President Obama's surprising (to say the least) announcement that he would submit to Congress a resolution to authorize the use of force in Syria? I believe Obama was right that he did not have to go to Congress; for an attack of the sort he has contemplated, there is ample and robust precedent for the chief executive to act. And as the brilliant constitutional scholar Philip Bobbitt wrote in Foreign Policy, the Founding Fathers did not expect Congress's authority to declare war to preclude a president from acting militarily; it "was never considered a precondition for entering hostilities but rather, as the Supreme Court observed in 1800 in Bas v. Tingy, a matter of 'perfecting' an otherwise limited war.… "
So why go to Congress? For a combination of reasons. First, it is the right thing to do, in the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution and the law, and it appreciates the strong views of so many members of Congress, including a slew of Democrats. Second, it forces Congress to move past second-guessing and carping and step up to the plate, taking responsibility and sharing in the consequences. Third, it creates a much more focused and well-covered debate over the next two weeks, which could alter public opinion, now strongly tilted against any military action. And fourth, an action taken after a congressional imprimatur carries more weight internationally.
But the decision is still a riverboat gamble that enough members of Congress will, after a robust debate, understand that even if they are deeply reluctant to approve of a strike, the cost of disapproval would be too great. Riverboat gambles can pay off, of course. But there is a reason for the phrase "riverboat gamble," which Howard Baker used to describe the Reagan budget and tax cuts. It is a big risk.
The nature of the risk was in some ways evident in the hearing Tuesday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where the tough questions and most tense dialogue between senators and Secretary of State John Kerry came from New Mexico Democrat Tom Udall and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul -- on any other issue, a most unlikely duo. To be sure, plenty of strong liberals, including Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, made clear that they support military action against Bashar al-Assad's regime. And it is most unlikely that the president will fail to get a majority, and probably a supermajority, in the Senate for a focused and stripped-down resolution written by Robert Menendez, a New Jerse Democrat, and Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, (although I am intensely interested to see what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, does, not to mention potential presidential contenders such as Marco Rubio.
In the House, the striking statements of support for the president from both Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor -- without preconditions -- sharply increase the odds in favor of the administration. But the fact is that an unlikely bipartisan coalition of liberal Democrats and Tea Party Republicans -- the latter including some Paulites and some, probably a greater number, who will reflexively vote against anything supported by Barack Obama -- poses a real challenge to success.