Syria attack puts Obama in tight spot

US President Barack Obama has taken a huge political gamble at home and abroad by asking Congress to approve his plans to use air power to punish Syrian leader Bashar Assad for a chemical weapons attack.
Obama already has appeared less than sure-footed in his handling of the Syria crisis. First, Obama declared in 2011 that Assad had to be removed from power and said last year that the use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” requiring an American response. Then, convinced that Assad used those weapons on Aug. 21, Obama decided to act, said a military strike was necessary and indicated it was just a matter of when, not if. But last weekend, shortly after announcing plans to take military action, Obama suddenly said he was still prepared to strike but wanted to ask Congress to vote on his plans.
Obama’s attempt to share responsibility for a US bombing and cruise missile campaign with the legislative branch has one of three possible outcomes:
1. Congress votes to support an attack, even as polls show most Americans oppose a military strike. An attack with the blessing of Congress would leave two branches of government acting in direct opposition to the will of the people.
2. Congress rejects Obama’s plan to attack, but he orders the military into action anyway. In that case, Obama would have handed opposition lawmakers another tool with which to attack him.
3. Congress fails to approve a strike on Syria, and Obama decides not to attack. In that case, the president would look powerless, and, he would lose credibility as leader of the world's only superpower.
So far in Congress, the foreign relations committee in the Democratic-controlled Senate has voted to back Obama. In a bow to Republican Sen. John McCain, the authorization to use force also contains language that calls for altering the momentum in the Syrian civil war, in which the Assad regime has the upper hand.

• THE ASSOCIATED PRESS