BARACK OBAMA’S DECISION TO CONSULT CONGRESS ON SYRIA

The parliamentary defeat for the Government in the House of Commons – last week – over Syria, has led many to comment over the long shadow of Iraq, of poor party management by the whip’s office, and, in some quarters, of the perfidious anti-war sentiments of those MPs who rebelled against the Government’s motion. But, with the majority of the British public opposed to military action, the result that so humiliated the prime minister was simply transparent politics and democracy at work: a far cry from that which materialised when Britain joined the U.S. in toppling Saddam Hussein from power in the Iraq war.

As events in Washington over the last few days make plain, the consequences of the British veto are only just beginning to be felt. Over the past week the US had been preparing for retributive air strikes, but the equivocation of the American President was evident enough. It had been left to Secretary of State John Kerry to fulminate against the ‘moral obscenity’ of chemical weapons, while Mr Obama talked in measured terms of a ‘limited and tailored operation’ and a ‘shot across the bow’. London’s embarrassing climb-down for the prime minister could have been met with White House declarations that the US would not be deterred. But whether that bravado would have proved sustainable has now been countered by a President who insists the decision must be ratified by Congress first, even though the President had already made up his mind to take military action.

In the immediate term, America’s change of political tack is significant enough. Mr Obama has been keen to stress that the proposed action (‘limited in duration and scope’ but still enough to ‘hold the Assad regime accountable’) is not time dependant. The president talks now of a ‘surprise’ punitive strike, an answer perhaps that the operational advantages of an early strike has already been lost.

The political and legal climate will not get any easier as time moves on. Russia’s pro-Assad stance, and Moscow’s insistence of a veto-able UN resolution, along with the G20 gathering in St Petersburg this week, is surely testament to the difficulties that lie immediately ahead.

President Obama is far from assured on the support he needs. For one, Congress is not due to reconvene until the 9th of September – with the President having a week to persuade reluctant US lawmakers to support intervention. And, with the American public as equally ‘war weary’ as they are in Britain, and the dynamics of Capitol Hill unfavourable, Barack Obama may find himself in a similar humbling situation to David Cameron.

Regardless of the outcome, the President’s decision to consult Congress has far-reaching implications. As Commander-in-Chief, the President’s powers to commit the US to war will be open to interpretation. Seeking explicit legitimacy from legislators speaks volumes about his concern at the legal basis for action in Syria. A sense of isolation imploded upon by an ambivalent public and a crucial ally lost, means the constitutional balance of the US has changed with Mr Obama choosing to put the matter to a vote. Future presidents may be forced to follow his example as precedent becomes set.

The repercussions go further still. The pro-interventionist French President is also now facing demands to hold a parliamentary vote on Syria. The effects of the British decision in the House of Commons last week are spreading fast and wide.