The New York Times published two blistering editorials this morning taking President Barack Obama to task for his decision to launch airstrikes in Syria without congressional authorization, calling into question whether there’s “any sense of purpose and planning” behind the administration’s policy.
Lamenting what it called the administration’s “wrong turn on Syria,” the two editorials encapsulate mounting discontent with Obama’s expansion of U.S. airstrikes against the Islamic State terrorist group from Iraq into Syria. The first editorial chastised Obama for launching “another costly and potentially lengthy conflict in the Middle East” without providing a “full picture” of how his strategy could defeat ISIS and other militant groups in the region. While Obama has notified Congress of the strikes under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the Times noted, “that is not a substitute” for a congressional vote approving the strikes.
“In the absence of public understanding or discussion and a coherent plan,” the Times editorial board wrote, “the strikes in Syria were a bad decision.”
In yet another editorial, the Times criticized the administration for its muddled strategy vis-à-vis the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom ISIS seeks to depose. Although the U.S. isn’t coordinating its strikes with the Assad government — a government the U.S. has also sought to topple, citing its use of chemical weapons against civilians — the Times stated that it would be difficult to “prevent [the airstrikes] from bolstering the Assad regime.” This, the paper wrote, “may be the most dangerous and morally troubling consequence” of the new air war in Syria.
Even as neoconservatives like Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio praise the administration’s Syria strikes, the Times’ criticism reflects broader unease with the administration’s actions. A growing number of lawmakers are demanding that Congress debate and vote on the strikes.
Much of the skepticism has come from traditional allies of the Obama White House. Sen. Tim Kaine, an early Obama supporter in 2008, said Tuesday that despite the congressional recess, Congress should begin a debate over authorization "right now." Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland of the Center for American Progress — a think tank with no shortage of alumni of the Clinton and Obama administrations — called the administration's justification for its Syria policy "a rather weak foundation for a military operation" at a CAP event yesterday. Liberal criticism of the Syrian strikes comes after progressive groups voiced concerns earlier this summer about the growing U.S. military role in the region.
Despite calls for a full public debate on the latest military campaign, however, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin predicts that Congress won't hold an authorization vote until after the November midterms.
Shares