Will the AUMF Pass Congress?

In trying to predict how Congress will vote on granting the Obama administration Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Syria, a good place to start is with the same question people should be asking about the chemical attack on August 21 on a Damascus suburb, "Cui bono?"

Who benefited from the gas attack? Certainly not the Syrian government. The opposition had everything to gain in perpetrating the attack because it provocatively crossed a red line that Obama had previously laid down. Since the Obama administration has been publicly predicting the collapse of the Assad regime for some time, and since it has a covert program in Jordan to train and arm rebels, and since the United States has worked to block United Nations investigators from entering Syria at the invitation of the government to assess the possibility that chemical arms were used in the Khan al-Assal massacre (the UN inspection team was in Syria last month to investigate Khan al-Assal when they were sidetracked by the East Ghouta chemical attack), the obvious conclusion to draw is that a chemical weapons attack -- any chemical attack -- would be blamed reflexively on the Syrian government.

But who benefits if Congress passes the AUMF? Certainly not the American people, who will have to pay for and fight any conflict, and not any senator or congressman or congresswoman who votes for it, whether Democrat or Republican, because he/she will likely, based on the overwhelming opposition so far to another foreign military intervention, face a spirited primary challenge. The only beneficiary in the U.S. body politic, besides the overarching "National Security State" with its weapons manufacturers and think-tank pundits and surveillance chiefs, is the Obama administration.

Why would the Republican-controlled House do anything to benefit Obama? The answer is that it wouldn't. That's why it is safe to say that the AUMF won't clear the House. There are some who argue that AIPAC is all powerful and money rules the roost in D.C. and Congress is totally venal. But we have a recent example where this wasn't the case -- sequestration. Republicans were willing to sacrifice the military in order to achieve across-the-board budget cuts.

The result in the Senate is anyone's guess. My sense is that despite Obama's upcoming Tuesday speech and all the over-the-top inflammatory rhetoric of Secretary of State John Kerry -- saying that this vote is the country's "Munich moment" or that Assad refuses to negotiate when it is in fact the United States and its ally the Syrian National Coalition that refuses to negotiate -- the public will not shift its anti-war stance.

Senators are more insulated than those who serve in the House: their terms are longer and they can raise money more easily. There will be senators who will stick with Obama thinking that they can weather the storm of voter disgust. But will there be enough to get the AUMF out of the senate? The Obama administration can make no missteps. All the news coming out of Syria has to go the administration's way. There has to be a positive response to Obama's call for war from the White House. People suddenly have to soften to John Kerry's brazen warmongering. Rand Paul's filibuster has to fizzle.

That's a lot of stuff that needs to break the warhawks' way. This doesn't mean it can't happen. The state is powerful, and there's always the possibility of a watered-down AUMF squeaking through. But at the end of the day, even if an AUMF in some form emerges from the Senate, you're still left with a No vote in the House. Shenanigans in any House-Senate conference are almost guaranteed. Assuming Obama waits this long to launch the Tomahawks, the United Nations report on what happened in East Ghouta should be available by then.