In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt contrived a plan to send all 16 of America’s battleships — his beloved Great White Fleet — steaming around the globe, to prove that the U.S. was now a great maritime power.
When word got out, Congress balked, threatening to withhold funds for what was regarded as a wasteful extravagance. Roosevelt responded that he already had the money he needed, adding: “Try and get it back!”
This story comes to mind in the wake of President Barack Obama’s unexpected decision to seek congressional approval before taking any action in Syria. A presidential request for congressional approval is no new thing.
In 1991, President George Bush père sought a resolution authorizing military action to drive Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait.
President George W. Bush fils did the same in 2001, to obtain congressional approval for the invasion of Afghanistan. And of course Lyndon Johnson went to Congress in 1964 for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that ultimately provided the legal basis for U.S. escalation of the Vietnam War.
Johnson and both Bushes dealt with Congress from positions of relative strength.
They knew that the facts on the ground (or at least the facts as believed) made it all but impossible for the House and the Senate to refuse their demands. And Roosevelt, in the tussle over the Great White Fleet, sought to present Capitol Hill with a fait accompli. When challenged, he took the position that his constitutional authority as commander in chief allowed him to send the ships anywhere he wanted, a power he would not allow to be usurped by “a clique of Wall Street senators.”
Obama’s situation is different.
Congress may well adopt the resolution he seeks, but if members prove reluctant, the administration’s public agonizing over the question suggests that the president will not spend much political capital twisting arms.
Should Congress fail to grant Obama the approval he seeks, he will still face exactly the same decision that he does now.
“We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say,” the president warned on Saturday.
The irony is that he could only have been referring to his own warning last year that Syria President Bashar Assad would face “enormous consequences” were he to cross the red line by using chemical weapons.
Obama is in effect asking Congress for permission to enforce his own threat.
Critics have contended that Obama’s decision to go to Congress may signal a weakening of the prerogatives of the commander in chief.
I’m not so sure.
Consider the Authorization for the Use of Military Force adopted in 2001, after the attacks on Sept. 11.
The language turned out to be remarkably plastic. The Bush administration pointed to the AUMF as legal justification for the invasion of Iraq. The Obama administration has relied upon the same resolution as authority for its ever-widening drone war.
I have written before that the transfer of authority from the legislative branch to the executive over the past century has been, on the whole, a terrible thing for the U.S. republic. But the fault lies with a Congress that will not protect its own prerogatives.
Obama’s decision to seek a congressional resolution on Syria will do little to change that dynamic.
It isn’t as though a recalcitrant legislature forced his hand. Obama’s seeming reluctance to act without legislative approval will do nothing to handicap his successors. Quite the contrary: If Congress rejects his request, future presidents will simply go back to acting on their own — daring the legislators, Roosevelt-like, to stop them.
If, on the other hand, Congress gives Obama what he wants, we can be sure that this president, or some future one, will find another military purpose to which the resolution can be put. And somewhere, Theodore Roosevelt will be laughing.
Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg View columnist and a professor of law at Yale University. He is the author of “The Violence of Peace: America’s Wars in the Age of Obama,” and the novel “The Impeachment of Abraham Lincoln.”