But has Obama damaged the power of the president by allowing Congress its say? Is his decision, in fact, a “historic American retreat” – at least within the context of domestic politics?
Certainly, he’s doing something that no recent US president has done. Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada in 1983 and bombed Libya in 1986 without congressional approval, and Bill Clinton committed US forces to NATO air campaigns in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999 and launched a missile attack against terrorists in Afghanistan in 1998 without congressional backing. When Obama signed on to the 2011 Libya operation without involving Congress, he appeared to be endorsing an increasingly clear doctrine of presidential power: Congress was needed only if the military engagements would be long and involve significant ground troops – as in the two Iraq wars.
SOURCE: Syria strike delay: Does it make Obama a ‘weak president’? (+video) – CSMonitor.com.
Mr. Obama was prior to politics a constitutional professor so he probably knows more about the constitution than most of his predecessors. He knows that the constitution says that congress is the one to declare war. Yeah, I know that every president since at least Reagan has pretty much ignored that policy by saying they are not declaring war but instead just getting involved in a little dispute. In fact the only declared war in my lifetime is World War II (I think).
I am probably in a very distinct minority on this (wouldn’t be the first time :) ) but I salute President Obama for doing what he did in getting congress involved in the decision to put Americans lives and assets into another regional conflict on the other side of the world. While we are cutting aid to the poor we shouldn’t be going into further debt to buy a bunch of million dollar bombs and drones. Why are our priorities so out of whack? We should make going to war, whether it is officially declared or not, a very difficult thing to accomplish. It should only be used for the more dire of circumstances. And we should never “go it alone” without consensus of other countries and especially without consensus even within our own citizenry. Who made us the supreme moralists of the world?
Yes, what Mr. Obama did might have weakened the office of president but I consider that a good thing if it keeps us out of a few more “conflicts”.
But I’m just a simple guy so what do I know….
RJ's Corner - Having My Say 
I agree that it would be a good thing to not dip our toes into another quagmire, but I can’t really “salute” Obama. It seems that any moves he does make in foreign policy comes from a place of indecisivness ….that he and his advisors seek the route of political safety for themselves as much as or more than they seek any kind of moral justice. He brings in Congress to cover his you-know-what as much as anything else. He may “talk” a good game, but, I am not impressed .
LikeLike
Thanks for the comment Jane. We will have to disagree on this one as I see President Obama’s action as positive rather than negative. Maybe I am still living with the shell shock of our previous “decider” president who got us into two needless wars. When Mr. Obama decided to let congress have a say he was actually saying let our citizens have an input. I just don’t like it when a president decides everything for me.
I just posted over at http://redletterliving.net a response to this possible conflict by Shane Clairborne. You might be interested in seeing that. My Quaker leanings tell me that fighting fire with fire, as Shane says, only results in a bigger fire….
LikeLike
Not sure what what you are saying here. Is it alright to do violence as long as you get a group of people agree that you should do it?
I was disappointed that the President even considers going into a civil war. Why not Sudan or Egypt? Getting into civil wars is messy- to say the least. In the past, once you start killing civilians in the name of protecting them, boots go to the ground. It is a slippy slope. We cannot go into Bengazi to help our Ambassidor …but….
LikeLike
What I am saying here is that I agree with what you are saying and disagree with Jane. Maybe that is a first :) . Anything that makes going to war difficult I’m for. Let’s stay out of all civil wars. Right On Janette….
LikeLike
I guess I didn’t express myself very well. I DO agree that we should not go into Syria…limited strikes or otherwise. It can only go awry…they have already moved military and weapons to residential areas for cover. We would end up killing civilians. I do not advocate that kind of violence. I am merely saying that Obama is weak and indecisive on all foreign policy … he is too concerned about his “legacy” etc.. and doesn’t really know what to do. He may come to a correct conclusion but won’t be on his own or because he is savy or knowledgable, It will be because it’s the politically correct way to go. I am sure that “advisors” steer his moves. That does not comfort me. So we “kind of” agree….I just don’t admire Obama any more. Sadly.
LikeLike
And I agree with Jane.
LikeLike
Ganging up on my now are you? Kidding aside, I really do too. Mr. Obama has been a disappointment but I put a lot of that one the totally obstructionist GOP.
LikeLike