A letter signed by 116 House members made President Obama think twice about moving on Syria. But war drums continue to beat.
The bipartisan letter circulated by Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., warned Obama that a Syrian incursion could be “unconstitutional.”
"In the case of military operations in Libya you stated that authorization from Congress was not required because our military was not engaged in hostilities.
"We view the precedent this opinion sets, where national interest is enough to engage in hostilities without congressional authorization, as unconstitutional," the letter states.
"If the use of 221 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 704 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and 42 Predator Hellfire missiles expended in Libya does not constitute hostilities, what does?"
Still, Rigell’s letter says Congress stands “ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict.”
It was unclear Sunday if the Obama administration would proceed if Congress does not authorize action.
Meantime, Watchdog.org reported that only 9 percent of Americans support military intervention.
“Even if it was proven that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on civilians — what the White House has called a ‘red line’ for military intervention — only 25 percent of Americans would want to intervene,” Watchdog said, citing the latest Reuters survey.
The Lyndon LaRouche PAC, an unstinting opponent of American military involvement, told Examiner that “any U.S. attack on Syria has the potential to trigger a larger war.
“The U.S. military has been decimated through more than a decade of long wars. The logic of the U.S. buildup against Russia and China (both strong allies of Syria) is moving the world toward a Pacific thermonuclear war.
“Once the fuse is lit with even a limited military strike against Syria, the situation immediately moves out of control.”
The LaRouche group previously accused the U.S. government of sending weapons to Syrian rebels through Libya and Turkey.
Caution was even sounded by the military analyst who devised the much-discussed strategy for a “surgical strike” on the Mideast country.
Writing in Foreign Policy, John Hudson reported that U.S. Navy planner Chris Harmer “now has serious misgivings” about using cruise missiles to attack Syrian military installations.
"Tactical actions in the absence of strategic objectives is usually pointless and often counterproductive," said Harmer, a senior naval analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. "I never intended my analysis of a cruise missile strike option to be advocacy, even though some people took it as that."
Harmer said, "I made it clear that this is a low cost option, but the broader issue is that low cost options don't do any good unless they are tied to strategic priorities and objectives.
"Any ship officer can launch 30 or 40 Tomahawks. It's not difficult. The difficulty is explaining to strategic planners how this advances U.S. interests."