President Obama wanted to remove al Assad from Syria after he used chemical weapons on his people. Congress asked him to let them decide the issue and they chose not to do anything, so he stepped back. Of course, now they complain that he hasn't done anything.
In regard to ISIS President Obama didn't wait. He stepped up to the plate and told the world we would help Iraq and others to fight ISIS until they were destroyed. That was several months ago. Has Congress asked him to let them decide the issue? Well, they implied they were interested and said they would review the AUMF issue and perhaps write another one more appropriate for ISIS and the terrorism of today.
What have they done? When Democrats were in charge of the Senate the Foreign Relations Committee wrote an AUMF, but never voted on it. Since then there has been nothing. They don't want to get their pudgy hands dirty. Republicans have taken over the Senate and you would think they would be happy to authorize violence anywhere and everywhere, but even they aren't interested. Perhaps it's the idea of working with this president they detest that hinders them.
Without Congressional authorization and with the argument, coming from both Democrats and some Republicans, that ISIS is not a part of al Qaeda and should not be considered part of al Qaeda (though it originate from within al Qaeda) it would appear they don't want the U.S. military to fight ISIS. That raises the Constitutional issue of what authority the president has to continue the fight.
I have no doubt that if he were to retreat the Republicans would excoriate him and claim the end of the world was nigh. But, if Congress is to have the reins to restrain an out-of-control presidency (and the Republicans claim they want that all the time), then what else could he do?
Similarly, the president has joined five other countries in discussions with Iran to trade a lifting of economic sanctions if they will cease and desist from developing a nuclear bomb program. The Republicans wrote a letter to Iran telling them the president, or some future president (perhaps a Republicans), would not be held to a political agreement if it didn't also have the approval of the U.S. Congress. In short, they are declaring that a simple political deal should no longer exist and that only formal treaties are acceptable. They want to tie the hands of President Obama, even if it means the likelihood of war with Iran is tremendously increased.
Republican partisanship has stopped the president from removing Assad and now from fighting ISIS and perhaps from arriving at a useful political deal with Iran (thus leading the world to believe our government can't follow-through on promises in the area of foreign policy or any sort of treaty or political deal). America would pay a very high price for such behavior, but it is our form of government that we must work together (the branches of government) or nothing should happen. And, that's where our government stands today.
The American people need to know how dangerous this Republican policy of obstruction is and what its consequences could be.
Assad remains, fighting and killing his people. ISIS still exists and if we leave Iraq they will likely remain and perhaps even grow. If the Iranians decide a political deal is worthless because it can't be depended upon in future administrations then they may decide to build a nuclear bomb to force us to lift the sanctions. These are all quite real possibilities and all due to the Republican political policy.
