Obama fights against three ghosts

The traces of fears and rage that the 9/11 attacks created in the American subconscious represent the basic drive for the US intention to wash its hands of the Muslim geography. Though it declares that the intervention will be limited in scope, the White House cannot persuade the US public that the intervention in Syria will not be like the war in Iraq.

Will the US Congress endorse Obama's action plan? The signs are not promising. Will Obama wield his authority to launch the attack even if the congress does not approve it? What will be the scope of this "limited" operation? What does it mean to say, "We will degrade [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad's military power," while simultaneously giving the message, "We won't change the balance of powers in the area." What a puzzle.

Announcing his decision to seek congressional approval of the intervention in Syria last Saturday, Obama pulled the pin and left a grenade in the middle of Washington when he left for the G-20 summit. After hours of efforts at persuasion by Secretary of State John Kerry, the relevant committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives came to the conclusion that the chemical attack was launched by pro-Assad forces. But these sessions weren't enough to quell the doubts politicians still nurture about whether it would be in the interests of the US to punish Assad's use of chemical weapons with a military operation that even the UK refuses to support.

Kerry enthusiastic, Pentagon subdued

Backed by State Department who favor a more active role for the US in the Syrian crisis, Kerry staged a heroic defense of the president's decision to intervene. Yet the subdued mood of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, who accompanied him during the presentations, was an indicator of the military bureaucracy's reluctance for war. In other words, Obama is far from persuading his own cabinet and part of his bureaucracy, let alone the US public or the US Congress. The mixed signals coming from the administration and the opposition of the US public to the intervention, coupled with the cacophony in the political arena reduce the chances for approval from Congress.

After returning to the US over the weekend, Obama is personally taking the business into his own hands and kicks off a persuasion campaign for the public and Congress. Obama has allocated his weekly radio speech to the Syrian crisis and he will talk to many US media organizations, one after another. He will also give an address to the public from the White House. Recalling that public approval was not sought for World War II or the Kosovo operation, Obama advised members of Congress to row against the tide with him. Yet, it seems it won't be easy to secure the support of politicians who don't want to draw the wrath of their voters.

Earlier this week, Republican leaders at House of Representatives, Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor as well as Democrat House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gave their support to Obama, which filled the White House with hope. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations voted 10 to seven in favor of the Obama's plan to use military force in Syria. Obama indicated that he was confident about getting congressional approval for the plan. Yet toward the weekend, it became clear that it would be a very daunting task to get this approval in the Senate and even more challenging in the House of Representatives.

Majority not showing their true colors

The majority of the members of the US Congress are not showing their true colors. The current tendency of the Republican-dominated House of Representatives is to reject the plan, particularly given the pressure from voters. If it does not face filibustering efforts, the resolution will be voted on in the Senate within the week. The process in the House of Representatives will be more complicated and uncertain. For the resolution to be approved, it must pass both houses. Obama makes no comment about what he will do if he cannot get approval.

The president is having a hard time convincing not only the anti-war liberals in his party, but also his loyal African-American supporters. Both Democrats and Republicans are divided. The traditional and national security-oriented wing of the Republican Party believes that it would be detrimental to US interests if no operation is launched against Syria at this stage. The ultra-conservative Tea Party movement and anti-war libertarian wing argue that the US army should not be used unless it is attacked. The lack of a political plan for the post-operation period is also a source of concern for many.

To convince influential Republicans like Senator John McCain, who suggests a heavier blow should be dealt to the Syrian regime, Obama signals that the operation wouldn't be as weak as many believe. This then raises doubts in the minds of anti-war groups. The latest signs indicate that the Assad regime would not only be prevented from using chemical weapons once again, but also that its air forces would be seriously weakened.  

In trying to convince the US public and politicians, Obama is fighting three major ghosts: the painful and emotional legacies of the 9/11 attacks, the war in Iraq and the economic crisis that now drive the US to neglect the Muslim world. Opponents of the intervention play the fear card by exaggerating the role of radical and terrorist groups in Syrian resistance. Though it reassures that the intervention will be limited in scope, the White House has been unsuccessful thus far in convincing the public that it will not become like other foreign adventures. Concerns about the economy and a sense of insecurity about the future are leading the American people to isolate themselves from the external world.

It is hard to guess the wisdom, if any, behind Obama's move to seek congressional approval for an operation that is within his mandate to launch when the public nurtures deep doubts about it. With his move, Obama risked not only his decision to intervene in Syria, but also his and perhaps even future presidents' foreign policy overall. If he cannot secure approval, this may weaken the US executive branch's capacity to act independently of the legislature and the public in foreign policy. The weight of what the US president says about a specific matter may be reduced in the international arena. This may signal the beginning of the end of the US hegemony. For this reason, the Syrian resolution is absolutely critical.