Like many Israelis, I watched with bated breath on Saturday night as U.S. President Barack Obama approached the lectern in the Rose Garden at the White House. The past week in Israel had the tense feeling of a prewar waiting period, with everyone wondering when the U.S. sword would fall on Syria and if there would be retaliatory missile fire at Israel.
The sense that war in the region was imminent grew on Friday night after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delivered an impassioned and convincing argument that explained why America had the duty to hold the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad accountable for the use of chemical weapons. It seemed clear that the U.S. had crossed the point of no return and cruise missiles would start raining down on military targets in Syria within 24 to 48 hours.
But apparently Obama had a change of heart at some point between Kerry's address and his own speech in the Rose Garden a day later. As soon as Obama said that he had decided the U.S. "should" take military action against the Assad regime, I knew I could put my gas mask away for at least a week or two. "Should-" That's not the Churchillian language of a resolute leader about to unleash a powerful military blow against a despicable despot. Rather, it's the indecisive cop-out of a hesitant politician unwilling to bear responsibility for a risky, but justifiable, decision.
From my couch in Tel Aviv, I swear I could hear Assad laughing from his Damascus palace. Even if the U.S. still ends up striking Syria in a few weeks, the message of deterrence will resonate less than if it had been delivered now (or a week ago).
If the new standard is going to be that Congress has to give prior approval to limited airstrikes that involve no troops on the ground, then tyrants around the world have reason to celebrate. With Congress already barely functional in the U.S. domestic sphere, I cannot imagine it will be able to effectively handle an increase in foreign affairs duties. And what will the criteria for congressional involvement in military decisions be? Will drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen also have to be approved by the Senate and House of Representatives-
National security issues cannot become poker chips in the rancid partisan bickering that defines Washington these days. If the president (who is also the commander-in-chief of the armed forces) determines military action is in the national security interests of the U.S., he must be able to launch an operation in a timely fashion, without being subject to recalcitrant obstructionism of members of the opposing political party who might be seeking retribution against the president over unrelated issues.
Whether one supports a U.S. military strike on Syria or not, it is undeniable that Obama's decision to pass the buck to Congress exuded weakness. And if no U.S. military action in Syria is ultimately taken, then Obama will have been irrevocably exposed as an emperor with no clothes. Perhaps it was not wise for Obama to set the use of chemical weapons as an unequivocal red line in Syria, but he must live up to his word if he hopes to retain any credibility on the world stage, including in Israel (which has to decide whether to take Obama's pledge to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons seriously. If Obama cannot be trusted to act militarily against Iran if necessary, then Israel might have to do the job on its own).
It's almost certain that Obama would not have sought congressional approval for military action had the British House of Commons not rejected U.K. involvement. But U.S. policy should not be guided by the House of Commons vote, which seemed more about exorcising the ghosts of Iraq than anything to do with the current situation in Syria. And by giving Congress a say, Obama has given domestic and international opposition to a U.S. military strike a window of opportunity to coalesce even further.
If Obama takes advantage of the time he bought on Saturday to formulate a comprehensive military and diplomatic plan that both weakens the Assad regime and bolsters moderate elements within the Syrian opposition, then the delay will have been worth it. But if all that transpires is a two-week debate over an eventual two-day cruise missile campaign, then this whole episode will go down in history books as a giant farce. Based on Obama's foreign policy track record, I fear the latter is the most likely scenario.
For the past four and a half years, I've wanted to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, despite his numerous missteps in the international arena. But he lost me on Saturday. America is still the world's leading superpower and it must act decisively to defend its interests and enforce international norms. If Obama does not want such responsibility on his shoulders, then he's in the wrong job.
The writer is an Israel Hayom English Edition editor.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו