Thursday 5 September 2013

Should Obama seek congressional approval for Syrian action?


Following David Cameron's decision for Britain not to participate in any action against Syria following a parliamentary vote on the issue, President Obama surprised everyone by agreeing to seek congressional approval before any US action, rather than simply acting without authorisation as many commander-in-chiefs have done before. Is Obama right to seek congressional approval or does the process weaken both himself and the office of president?

16 comments:

  1. I personally think that Obama's decision to seek congressional approval to launch a strike in Syria weakens both himself and the office of president, due to the fact that he does have the presidential prerogative to wage war, and the situation in Syria has reached a desperate point at which intervention is crucial.

    Obama is one of the most powerful men in the world at the moment in terms of foreign policy, and yet whilst 7,000 children (and counting) have been killed by Bashar al-Assad's chemical attacks alongside deadly diseases such as typhoid fever due to deteriorating living conditions, he decides that prolonging the date of the strike (as Dempsey says) doesn't matter.

    Besides all of this, even if it is more democratic and relieves Obama of the responsibility of the strike in Syria, surely there is the potential for a repeat of the humiliating vote in the House of Commons? After all, as it states in the McGregor/Parker article, republicans and democrats are welcoming Obama's action because it gives them the opportunity to vote against the strike, which is undoubtedly necessary. Liberals will vote against the strike on an ideological basis, and republicans will vote against anything Obama puts forward.

    In conclusion, I think that Obama made the wrong decision, and I hope that congress at least has the decency to support the intervention when asked to vote.

    ACJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is why Obama would be weakened if he had not sought congressional approval for military action in Syria.

      Firstly, Obama's public approval ratings are not looking good. In his handling of foreign policy they have dropped from 52% approval in December 2012 to just 41% in six months whilst a staggering 49% now disapprove. With these figures Obama has little choice but to do what the public will approve of most. Now we can look to figures that show how 79% of the public believe the president should be 'required' to seek approval before military action in Syria. As you can see, ignoring these pleas for Obama to take matters to congress would lead to voter dissatisfaction, leaving the public feeling angry and alienated from the political system. This is definitely not the moral of the public Obama needs if military strikes are to take place. Thus, Obama had little choice but to seek approval where the public believed was necessary.

      Delete
  2. I think that Obama should not have sought congressional approval for military action in Syria. As republicans dislike Obama and will find it difficult to want to vote for the action that he is proposing. Obamas own party the democrats may not be in favour of the action but however they follow Obamas lead and go against their better judgement and vote for. This puts a greater emphasis on the politics of America effecting the lives of people in Syria who desperately seek aid. With out international intervention the crisis can not change, innocent people will continue to be killed and forced from their homes and towns to seek refuge. Obamas and Blair's choice to put the matter up to a vote undermines the seriousness of the crisis. ZD

    ReplyDelete
  3. The light in which Obama’s decision to seek congressional approval is judged, for me is entirely dependent on his reasoning for doing so. Is Obama playing his cards safe? By seeking congressional approval he is providing the opportunity for others to take responsibility and become a vehicle for shifting blame if things were to turn out badly if and when an attack was launched. Perhaps Obama is counting on congressional involvement to insure that he doesn’t end up like Blair or Bush, both still blamed on personal levels for involvement in Middle Eastern conflict. If this is so and Obama is trying to secure a Democrat victory at the next presidential election, then I believe his decision both weakens him at both a presidential and personal level. In a country where the president is head of state, he should not have to seek any approval for decisions of this nature. If Obama’s intelligence is telling him Assad is behind the chemical attacks and he believes that involvement is necessary in fighting crimes against humanity then he has the presidential prerogative to make these decisions without the unnecessary involvement of congress.
    However, if Obama really believes that crucial decisions like these that may ultimately affect the US economy, foreign relations and even loss of life, are ones that should be made by a group of individuals (whom together have varying opinions and expertise) then maybe for this he should be praised? When he could have taken a decision on his own, he is putting everything on the table by asking the involvement of republicans and tea party members. If he really believes that their opinion is as valuable as his in making these decisions, and by putting his reputation as president on the line, perhaps morally this strengthens him as a person and president.
    It seems as though Obama is trying to operate in similar style to the British prime minister- taking a ‘first among equals’ stance by sharing the decision making. However the US is clearly a very different system and whether Obama’s actions are appropriate or not will be tested in the decisions made over the next few weeks and outcomes potentially spanning over years to come.
    PM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand the importance of perspective, but even taking the positive stance that Obama is morally strengthening himself into account, I still believe that it was still a weak decision. Sharing the decision-making indicates that Obama is indecisive about Syria, and considering that he is the most powerful man in foreign policy, citizens from all of the western democracies are looking to him for confidence that the west can resolve the crimes against humanity that are occurring in Syria. When your nation assumes the role of the 'world's policeman', you cannot let situations like Syria escalate whilst you attempt to distribute responsibility by turning to a congressional vote! Needless to say, preventing further deaths of children is more important than enhancing democracy. ACJ

      Delete
    2. I agree with the stance that weakens Obama at a presidential and personal level to seek Congressional approval. However I think that it is more immoral to do so due to the fact that Western politics is therefore influencing the innocent and highly at risk civilians. As other nations take their lead from the actions of the US Obama has set the way for other European leaders to follow and ask their Houses to vote. I personally find this irritating as the issue is humanitarian and should not be political. ZD

      Delete
  4. In my opinion, Obama has made a fatal decision. He is no doubt within his authority to order a strike in Syria, so seeking congressional approval is legally unnecessary. Besides, he is setting a dangerous precedent. No previous presidents had ever seek congressional approval for military action before. As the first one to do so, if he fails to obtain approval from the Congress successfully, his powerful image as the current president, as well as the overall image of a president, will be undermined. His move is disadvantageous to himself, and it seems unlikely that Obama can tackle the problem in Syria easily.

    Seeking congressional approval is totally unnecessary, as there is no point to do something that is barely beneficial. The UK has already set a clear example of what might happen if Obama takes a similar move as the British Prime Minister did. So it is very unlikely that the Congress will approve his decision.
    MT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that Obama would have been perfectly within his authority to order strikes on Syria. Just because he could have done it, though, it does not mean that it should. It is legally unnecessary but morally correct to consult a democratically representative body before doing something which much of the country has such deep misgivings about. Obama's decision certainly sets a precedent, but not a dangerous one - the dangerous precedent would surely be set by rashly taking military action in Syria purely on his own authority.

      SH

      Delete
  5. I believe Obama's decision to seek congressional approval before launching a strike on Syria weakens both himself and the office of president. In my opinion, the prerogative power of the President is one of the most crucial; not only does it mean that he can act swiftly but also that he can be saved the potential humiliation and criticism if Congress votes no.
    Obama is one of the most influential and powerful men in the world, however, this image is now likely to be questioned by many as he consults congress on such a serious matter. Not only will his position of power be questioned at home but also by foreign powers who view the president as a strong leader. His decision to consult congress may be considered to highlight his inability to make quick decisions or that he does not wish to be held solely responsible should the attack not go as planned as Blair was.
    Due to congress being controlled by the Republicans it is very likely that they will make life difficult for Obama when it comes to voting, essentialy prolonging the process on a matter that needs to be dealt with urgency. With tea party Republicans attempting to destroy Obama, his standing is almost certainly going to be weakened if he loses the vote now that he will have confronted them on federal govenrment funding too.
    If congress do vote no on an attack, there is nothing stopping Obama from going ahead with an unauthorised attack on Syria. However, this will make him appear to be hypocritical and untrustworthy for not following the Constituion or listening to congress which will itself lead to heavy criticism.
    To conclude, I believe Obama should never have consulted congress on a matter that requres such urgency. Not only will this take time that they do not have, time in which innocent people are dying, but it makes Obama look weak and unsure of what to do; now, the only thing he can do is hope congress vote yes, quickly.
    OA

    ReplyDelete
  6. In my opinion I think that Obama's decision to seek congressional approval before he attacked Syria shows signs of weakness in his role as President. As a President it can be argued that Obama is one of the most powerful men in the world, and the fact he had to seek approval could weaken the public's perception of him as he is meant to be a leader- it could also be argued that Obama does not want to take responsibility for this attack.
    As well as this Obama will have also impacted future Presidents as a comparison may now be made with Obama's decision to seek congressional approval and they may be asked why "they didn't choose to seek congressional approval like Obama did over Syria". This will have a negative impact because Presidents are meant to have the greatest power and shouldn't need to seek approval as the whole reason they were voted in was because they were trusted in the first place to make decisions like these.
    Ultimately, I believe Obama should have not consulted congress- who are controlled by Republicans- because this process will not take a lot longer to resolve which will mean more people will die as a result as well as Obama appearing to be weak and uncertain.
    SE

    ReplyDelete
  7. Seeing as everyone so far has said that Obama made the wrong decision I'll see if I can argue the other side!

    While it is true that Obama was by no means obliged to seek congressional approval, I would argue that his decision to do so could be seen as strengthening his own position and the office of president. US politics in general is heavily influenced by the media and Obama will surely be portrayed as seeking a consensus and not as the autocrat which many Republicans like to describe.

    One key weakness of modern implementation of the US Constitution is that too much power falls to one person: the President. Obama is therefore strengthening the office of president through setting a precedent for congressional consent as it shows that Congress and the White House can work together rather than against one another. If the President has been authorised by Congress in key decisions then it is less easy to blame them personally and thus weaken their political standing. Obama being seen as unwilling to exercise some of the extensive powers granted to him will surely show him as modest and democratic as opposed to tyrannical.

    Obama is surely justified in his concern about personal blame for Middle Eastern conflicts. This is perhaps the main thing which both the Bush and the Blair administrations will be remembered for. Therefore, it is the sign of a wise president rather than an over-cautious one to try to avoid the same situation by seeking congressional approval.

    SH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the President of the United States Obama should be aware that his job requires decisions like this to be made without needing to seek congressional approval. Although it may be seen as a smart move in the way that he is distancing himself from other leaders who may have been seen to over-exercise their power, at the same time it also shows signs of weakness because it appears as if Obama is not willing to take the entire blame for him actions if the attack on Syria does not go to plan. I also do not believe that a ‘wise president’ would need to seek approval as Obama should be confident in his decision over Syria and it will not look good if congress vote against Obama, as well as the fact whilst Obama is choosing to take his time over the issue of Syria thousands of innocent children are dying each day- clearly suggesting Obama’s days of being viewed as the ‘most powerful man in the world’ are numbered. SE

      Delete
    2. Maybe Obama is trying to strengthen his position as the president by presenting himself as a wise and democratic man, unlike many republicans. However, he should be aware of the drawbacks of his decision as they might weaken his strong presidential image.
      I think everything depends on whether the Congress approves his proposal. If Obama successfully obtains congressional approval, of course he will not be the only one to blame if any problems arise in Syria after the strike. The success in seeking congressional approval will also strengthen his position and perhaps his party. However, if Obama fails to gain congressional approval, his 'powerful' image will be weakened and it might be more difficult for him to work with the Congress together in the future.
      Obama's decision is a slightly dangerous gamble. If he wins, he wins a lot. If he loses, he loses a lot. At a time of difficulty in Syria, I think Obama, the 'most powerful man' in US, should be more decisive and make decision on his own so that the problem in Syria could be solved as soon as possible.
      MT

      Delete
  8. In my opinion Obama's decision to seek congressional approval before launching an attack on Syria weakens the image and perception of him as President. Obama is arguably one of the most powerful men in world so it would be assumed that he would be able to make decisions alone or with minor consultation. To me seeking congressional approval suggests uncertainty and undermines his prerogative power.

    Although it is true that a crucial decision on such a serious matter cannot be taken lightly nor made in a short amount of time however prolonging the process is simply unnecessary at a time when urgency is key. Obama was given the power to wage war so when it is necessary I believe that he should exercise this right.

    In conclusion, Obama was wrong to seek congressional approval as it in unnecessary. Obama needs to assert his authority as President after all many innocent people are dying through no fault of their own.
    RB

    ReplyDelete
  9. I believe that Obama's decision to seek approval has allowed him to ensure that other people take blame if the events of an attack were to fail. With Obama being Head of State it is his power alone that should decide the fate of the countries' forces. In my opinion Obama is including congress to shift any worry that he may have towards the attack away from his own personal image in society so that unlike Tony Blair, who is still found at fault for the attacks in the Middle East, he is not damaged in the eyes of his voting public and ensure the face of the Democrat party is not destroyed. His decisions has weakened his position in presidency because he has the presidential prerogative to take action on his own without any intervention from congress as most previous Presidents have done in the past.
    Obama's main problem is that congress is solely controlled by the Republicans meaning he will have strong opposition against his opinions. This most likely will prolong the period of decision making at a time when great urgency is needed. However if congress decide to go the opposite way to what Obama wants then this will show his lack of leadership of congress. Furthermore Obama can go forward wi the attack without approval which would highlight untrustworthy behaviour on his part and hypocrisy towards his fellow colleagues opinions.
    In conclusions I believe that Obama has made a poor decision by seeking a approval as his position is weakened, but we will see in the next couple of weeks if his choice was the right way forward for his leadership and public perception of the control he has over decisions made in congress. Will this effect the strength of future decisions Obama makes on his own? Only time will tell...
    HN

    ReplyDelete
  10. Whilst it can be argued that seeking approval from Congress does weaken his position as President in the eyes of the Houses, the same can be said definitively for those of the American people. No American family will want a repeat of Iraq or Afghanistan, where American involvement was decided by the President with very little support from Congress. Surely seeking Congressional approval will shift any blame for the fallout from any strikes away from Obama and onto the federal government as a whole, rather than solely being his fault? Strikes against Syria could cause huge problems for the USA, and so it seems only right that Congress is consulted before a definite decision is made.

    SL

    ReplyDelete