The editors of National Review write that they are in favor of U.S. military action in Syria.
Last week, we wrote that President Obama was about to undertake the most reluctant military strike ever. Now, he has gone to Congress with the most backhanded request for the authorization of military force ever.
Secretary of State John Kerry had delivered two emotional justifications for military action that everyone took as a sign that an attack was imminent, when the president unexpectedly announced he had decided to ask for a congressional authorization (and without bothering to consult his secretary of state, who just happens to have been a senator for 28 years). The turnabout was so sudden it seemed to say more about the president’s irresolution than his desire to get congressional input. The president’s position is that, even if the measure is rejected, he might bomb Syria anyway.
He is embracing an expansive view of his authority while ignoring the reasons the Founders wanted a strong commander-in-chief in the first place. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the executive can act with “decision, activity, secrecy and dispatch.” As he wavers and his administration leaks its target lists, President Obama is 0–4.
... If we don’t act in this case, after all this windup, Iran and Hezbollah will take note of how little our admonitions to not acquire or use weapons of mass destruction really mean. We can’t know exactly what would come of our self-inflicted humiliation, but it would be nothing good. For that reason, we would vote “yes” on the authorization, although we think reasonable people can disagree, and we urge Congress to push the president to enunciate a Syria strategy beyond punishing it for its chemical-weapons use.
You can read the rest of the piece via the below link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357473/yes-us-action-syria-editors
Note: The above U.S. Navy photo is of the USS Barry, DDG 52, one of the warships off the coast of Syria.
