President Barack Obama is pursuing a risky course in putting his Syria policy in the hands of Congress, where skepticism and anxiety in both parties about his drive toward military action have been high.
ReutersSens. John McCain, shown, and Lindsey Graham said in a joint statement that they 'cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria' unless they can 'change the momentum on the battlefield.'
Opposition to Mr. Obama's call to strike Syria has come from a set of Republicans, many in the libertarian mold, and liberal Democrats who already had formed an alliance out of wariness of the president's drone and national-security surveillance programs, among other uses of executive power.
Centrist opposition has begun to surface, as well. Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.), a centrist who often breaks with his party on fiscal issues, said Friday that he didn't see the evidence of an imminent threat to national security that would prompt military action.
House GOP leaders announced Saturday that they would debate and vote on the issue the week of Sept. 9, when Congress is scheduled to return from its summer recess. Senate Democratic leaders are considering bringing the Senate back into session earlier and beginning debate next week, according to a senior Democratic aide.
The depth of opposition is uncertain. No solid head count is possible. Because Congress is in recess, lawmakers are scattered around the country, and the scope and language of a resolution to authorize force isn't yet clear.
But Mr. Obama faces an environment in which support even from some of Congress's most hawkish Republicans is uncertain. Where the president has talked of making limited strikes of short duration, Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said in a joint statement that they "cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria'' unless they can "change the momentum on the battlefield.''
Many lawmakers had been clamoring for an opportunity to weigh in on whether and how the U.S. should respond to the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens. Some 186 lawmakers, including more than 50 from Mr. Obama's own party, signed letters to the president in recent days calling on him to seek authorization for any military action.
Now that Mr. Obama has said he would seek such authorization, lawmakers will have to clarify whether they were making a procedural point and asserting what they saw as a congressional prerogative to approve military action, or whether they oppose Mr. Obama's policy on the merits.
Mr. Obama's allies on the issue say he faces a big job ahead in turning public opinion and Congress in his favor.
"It's important for the president to use every ounce of political capital and energy he has to sell this to the American people,'' said Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He added that this is also a pivotal moment for members of Congress who have a long history of carping about foreign policy on the sidelines without taking a clear stand.
"Congress has gotten a pass on these issues,'' said Mr. Corker. The last time Congress formally debated and voted on a resolution authorizing the use of military force was in 2002, after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.), who supports an attack on Syria, lambasted Mr. Obama for asking for congressional authorization he thought wasn't needed.
"President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents," said Mr. King.
The spotlight will be especially bright on Congress at a time when public esteem for the institution is at record lows
"I hope it doesn't break down on partisan lines.'' said Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.). "Our democracy is going to be on exhibit for all the world to see.''
It is historically a familiar tension between Congress and the White House that, when military action is being contemplated, lawmakers often demand to be consulted and claim the constitutional power to authorize the use of force.
But this time, the call for consultation and votes has been more persistent and intense than in the past because of the rise of tea-party backed conservatives who are more opposed than establishment Republicans to the use of U.S. military force overseas.
Opposition to the 2002 resolution to use force against Iraq was limited almost exclusively to Democrats. Now small-government Republicans are part of the coalition of critics urging caution in Syria.
Just as a bipartisan House group came within seven votes in July of limiting National Security Agency surveillance of Americans, a bipartisan coalition could produce a close vote on Syria.
—Corey Boles contributed to this article.
ReutersSens. John McCain, shown, and Lindsey Graham said in a joint statement that they 'cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria' unless they can 'change the momentum on the battlefield.'
Opposition to Mr. Obama's call to strike Syria has come from a set of Republicans, many in the libertarian mold, and liberal Democrats who already had formed an alliance out of wariness of the president's drone and national-security surveillance programs, among other uses of executive power.
Centrist opposition has begun to surface, as well. Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.), a centrist who often breaks with his party on fiscal issues, said Friday that he didn't see the evidence of an imminent threat to national security that would prompt military action.
House GOP leaders announced Saturday that they would debate and vote on the issue the week of Sept. 9, when Congress is scheduled to return from its summer recess. Senate Democratic leaders are considering bringing the Senate back into session earlier and beginning debate next week, according to a senior Democratic aide.
The depth of opposition is uncertain. No solid head count is possible. Because Congress is in recess, lawmakers are scattered around the country, and the scope and language of a resolution to authorize force isn't yet clear.
But Mr. Obama faces an environment in which support even from some of Congress's most hawkish Republicans is uncertain. Where the president has talked of making limited strikes of short duration, Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said in a joint statement that they "cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria'' unless they can "change the momentum on the battlefield.''
Many lawmakers had been clamoring for an opportunity to weigh in on whether and how the U.S. should respond to the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens. Some 186 lawmakers, including more than 50 from Mr. Obama's own party, signed letters to the president in recent days calling on him to seek authorization for any military action.
Now that Mr. Obama has said he would seek such authorization, lawmakers will have to clarify whether they were making a procedural point and asserting what they saw as a congressional prerogative to approve military action, or whether they oppose Mr. Obama's policy on the merits.
Mr. Obama's allies on the issue say he faces a big job ahead in turning public opinion and Congress in his favor.
"It's important for the president to use every ounce of political capital and energy he has to sell this to the American people,'' said Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He added that this is also a pivotal moment for members of Congress who have a long history of carping about foreign policy on the sidelines without taking a clear stand.
"Congress has gotten a pass on these issues,'' said Mr. Corker. The last time Congress formally debated and voted on a resolution authorizing the use of military force was in 2002, after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.), who supports an attack on Syria, lambasted Mr. Obama for asking for congressional authorization he thought wasn't needed.
"President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents," said Mr. King.
The spotlight will be especially bright on Congress at a time when public esteem for the institution is at record lows
"I hope it doesn't break down on partisan lines.'' said Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.). "Our democracy is going to be on exhibit for all the world to see.''
It is historically a familiar tension between Congress and the White House that, when military action is being contemplated, lawmakers often demand to be consulted and claim the constitutional power to authorize the use of force.
But this time, the call for consultation and votes has been more persistent and intense than in the past because of the rise of tea-party backed conservatives who are more opposed than establishment Republicans to the use of U.S. military force overseas.
Opposition to the 2002 resolution to use force against Iraq was limited almost exclusively to Democrats. Now small-government Republicans are part of the coalition of critics urging caution in Syria.
Just as a bipartisan House group came within seven votes in July of limiting National Security Agency surveillance of Americans, a bipartisan coalition could produce a close vote on Syria.
—Corey Boles contributed to this article.