Political Writing - Must the U.S. Congress Approve International Attacks?

According to CNN and Fox News, Syrian President Bashar Assad agreed to allow U.N. teams to access chemical weapons sites. The civilian attack near Damascus on August 21 prompted the urgency for the investigation, and since then, tensions have increased across the U.S. concerning our prospective role in the conflict. President Obama has sought authorization from Congress to initiate international military action in the name of foreign policy.

As I follow media reports regarding the Syrian conflict and U.S. intervention, I continuously read posts from commenters asking: “Does the President need to gain Congress approval to launch an international attack?” In response, the public is divided. Some American citizens believe that President Obama must have Congress approval, while other disagree but feel that Congress approval will be helpful.

The media has perpetuated the idea that President Obama does not have the authority, nor the backing by government officials, to involve U.S. troops in conflicts abroad. For example, headliners across reporting agencies include CBC News: Syria attack illegal without Security Council approval, UN warns; MSNBC: UN suggests American attack on Syria would be illegal; and Aljazeera: Striking Syria: Illegal, Immoral, and dangerous contradict other headliners such as RT: Obama asserts right to strike Syria without congressional approval; New American: Ex-Defense Chiefs Say Obama Can Strike Syria Without OK from Congress; and Fox News: Like it or not, Constitution allows Obama to strike Syria without Congressional approval.

Such reporting platforms have misled the public by demonstrating varying understandings of U.S. regulations pertaining to international threat and potential war. The purpose of this week's blog is to clarify facts from misconceptions of foreign affairs and the President's authority to call for U.S. intervention in Syria. Although the President needs Congress approval to declare war, history has also shown that the government can misuse the term “war” to fulfill an agenda.

Below is a video excerpt of Former President Bill Clinton's retort on the matter.

Facts:

Clinton, himself, initiated a strike December 1998 along with Great Britain, against Saddam Hussein in response to chemical weapons stockpiles. He did not go to Congress for authorization or approval to commence Operation Desert Fox. Clinton further elaborates in the video that there has been an international pact (Geneva Protocol) against chemical weapons dating back from World War I, nearly a hundred years ago. Therefore, President Obama is not required to gain Congress approval, although their authorization for intervention would serve as support for the President.

Geneva Protocol Brief Overview:

• Prohibits the use of chemical weapons in warfare
• Prohibits the development, production or stockpiling of chemical weapons
• Provides for the elimination of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction under universally applied international control
• Ensures a credible, transparent regime to verify the destruction of chemical weapons; to prevent their re-emergence in any member State; to provide protection and assistance against chemical weapons; to encourage international cooperation in the peaceful uses of chemistry
• Calls for cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and is regulated by the relationship agreement between both organizations adopted by the General Assembly in September 2001

Related Readings

CNN

CBS News

Fox News Insider

Articles of Interest

CNN – The CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday shows that even though eight in 10 Americans believe that Bashar al-Assad's regime gassed its own people, a strong majority doesn't want Congress to pass a resolution authorizing a military strike against it.