Obama to seek Congress’ support for strike against Syria

WASHINGTON — President Obama abruptly announced that he would seek approval from a polarized Congress for missile strikes against Syria, stopping the clock for at least a week on what had loomed as an imminent attack for its alleged use of chemical weapons.

Speaking Saturday in the Rose Garden shortly after consulting with congressional leaders, Obama said that he had made up his mind to take military action in response to this “assault on human dignity,” but that the country needed to debate it.

“Over the last several days, we’ve heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree,” he said. “I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.”

In the days since the Aug. 21 attack on Damascus suburbs, White House officials had said they would not seek congressional approval, even as lawmakers turned up the volume on their calls for Obama to seek a vote.

Now, a potentially prolonged and difficult debate lies ahead, one that poses a clear risk of defeat for the president. Many newer lawmakers have never authorized the use of military force, and an unlikely alliance of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats is reluctant to do so. In the House, a new generation of GOP lawmakers leans more toward isolationism than the views of defense hawks.

British Prime Minister David Cameron also sought legislative backing for military action and suffered a stinging defeat in the House of Commons, putting America’s most trusted ally on the sidelines.

Obama administration officials would not rule out going ahead with a military operation against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, even if Congress does not authorize it. Like previous presidents, Obama argued that he did not need congressional approval.

“I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage,” he said. “Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced that he would call the Senate back early from its summer break for hearings this week and a vote on the resolution no later than the week after. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said his chamber would consider the issue as soon as lawmakers returned from their break Sept. 9.

The White House sent a proposed authorization to Boehner late Saturday. The resolution would authorize the president to use force “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” to prevent the use and spread of weapons of mass destruction and protect the United States and its allies from the threats “posed by such weapons.”

Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war. The 1973 War Powers Resolution permits the president to take the country to war for as long as 90 days without congressional authorization.

But about 200 members of Congress signed letters in the last week calling on the president to seek a vote in Congress. Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), who led one such effort, welcomed Obama’s announcement, saying congressional votes would “reflect the collective wisdom and the definitive position of the American people.”

On Saturday, Reid and a few other lawmakers issued statements strongly supporting a strike. “I believe the use of military force against Syria is both justified and necessary,” Reid said.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said he would work with other leaders to pass a resolution “as expeditiously as possible,” calling Assad’s actions “searing to the soul and blinding to the eye.” And Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the panel’s ranking Republican and a supporter of military action, called on the president to use “every ounce of his energy to make his case to the American people.”

But most other lawmakers were noncommittal. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said only that a congressional vote “would strengthen the president’s decision to take military action.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) expressed a similar sentiment.

In a twist, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who back military action, indicated they might vote against a resolution if it was too weak. “We cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the president’s stated goal of Assad’s removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict,” they said in a joint statement.

Obama argued Saturday that a military strike was essential to protect the nation’s security and offered a succinct summary of the danger: “It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.”

He cited a U.S. intelligence report released Friday, which concluded that a special Syrian chemical weapons unit launched rocket and artillery fire that dispersed clouds of poisonous gas in rebel-held neighborhoods outside Damascus, the capital. The report also said a preliminary assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed.

The White House had signaled that it was preparing an assault that would come after United Nations chemical weapons experts left Syria and before he boarded a plane Tuesday night to head to Sweden and Russia.

On Saturday, the U.N. team that had been in Syria arrived in The Hague. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was briefed by his arms control advisor and will be briefed Sunday by the chief of the inspection team. The U.N. said it could take up to three weeks to assess the evidence gathered in Syria.

The Obama administration has made clear that it would not wait for those results, which will determine whether chemical weapons were used but not who was responsible for using them.

Senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the president decided Friday evening to seek congressional approval. Obama said he had been assured by military officials that a strike was not “time sensitive” and he decided a public debate would strengthen the U.S. response.

It will also buy time to shore up support in Washington and abroad. All lawmakers were invited to return to the capital for a classified briefing Sunday, and the administration briefed senators by phone Saturday at McConnell’s request.

Senior administration officials predicted Saturday that Congress would authorize action, saying that to do otherwise would undermine U.S. credibility and could risk another attack. A year ago, Obama said Syria’s use of its chemical weapons would be “a red line” and promised that if it were crossed, “there would be enormous consequences.”

Obama also will try to rally international allies behind the strike, officials said, when he attends an economic summit this week in Russia.

Securing the votes is likely to be easier in the Senate. Democrats have the majority and both parties have fewer lawmakers on the edges of the political spectrum. But opposition could still be vehement.

“The United States should only engage militarily when it is pursuing a clear and attainable national security goal,” said Sen. Marco Rubio, the tea party-aligned Republican from Florida. “Military action taken simply to send a message or save face does not meet that standard.”

Resistance in the Republican-controlled House could run particularly strong. A vote in July could serve as a model. Then, a coalition of libertarian Republicans and liberal Democrats in the House fell just shy of passing an amendment to curtail the National Security Agency’s data collection programs. Similarly, conservatives and liberals joined in 2011 in declining to support the administration’s military action against Libya.

John Feehery, a former top GOP aide in the House, said that the president would have to work hard to pass a resolution, but he predicted it would be approved. “This is what happens when you take too long to make a decision,” he said. “The stakes are much higher now than they would have been a week ago.”

kathleen.hennessey@latimes.com

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

michael.memoli@latimes.com

Times staff writer Patrick J. McDonnell in Beirut contributed to this report.