Britain now wants to see a U.N. report on the alleged chemical attacks from weapons instructors, and to give the Security Council process more time. "But we want the Assad regime to understand that by using chemical weapons on a large scale against your own people ... you’re also creating a situation where U.S. national interests are affected, and that needs to stop." Whom should President Obama ask before he bombs Syria? Having people, representatives, raise their hands before you do something is not an empty ritual, even when they don’t vote the way you want them to. The U.N. human rights investigator said that, "According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas," adding that her commission's best understanding of the facts was that "sarin gas has been used ... by opponents, by rebels, not by government authorities." It would be a shock if it doesn’t fail, because Russia and China would veto it at this juncture—and, as John Cassidy writes, the weapons inspectors trying to figure out just what happened need time. He’d said that the War Powers Act didn’t apply in Libya because we weren’t engaged in “hostilities”: as the Rigell letter asks, “If the use of 221 Tomahawk cruse missiles, 704 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and 42 Predator Hellfire missiles expended in Libya does not constitute ‘hostilities,’ what does?” Under the War Powers Resolution, the President is supposed to inform Congress within forty-eight hours of starting military action, and get their permission to keep it up after sixty days.
– As the US considers what to do about Syria, there's no shortage of advice on the pros and cons: Pro-strike: Nicholas Kristof is generally wary of the "military toolbox," but it's important here to "reinforce the international norm against weapons of mass destruction," he writes in the New York Times. "For all the risks of hypocrisy and ineffectiveness, it’s better to stand up inconsistently to some atrocities than to acquiesce consistently in them all." Ditto: "Deepening American involvement in yet another Middle East conflict goes against President Obama’s instincts—and ours," write the editors at the Miami Herald. "Unemployment should be his principal focus. But events have a way of intruding on presidential agendas. In this instance, it’s unavoidable. Syria’s brazen disregard for humanitarian norms cannot go unanswered." Bad idea: Just what the world needs, yet another western military intervention in an Arab or Muslim country, writes Seumas Milne at the Guardian. Too many questions persist about the alleged chemical weapons attack, he writes, adding that military strikes would only escalate the war. "The risk is that they will invite retaliation by Syria or its allies—including against Israel—draw the US in deeper and spread the conflict." Better for the West to use its leverage with the rebels to try to force cease-fire talks. Slow down: This is remarkably similar to the run-ups to both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, writes Patrick L Smith at Salon. "Make that tragically similar. History proceeds, we Americans insist on the virtue of ignorance, on learning nothing and knowing nothing. And what we are about to get is what we get, predictably and always." Give the UN investigators the time they need, he urges. Ask Congress: Whatever the final decision, President Obama must consult with Congress about it, writes Amy Davidson at the New Yorker. "Having people, representatives, raise their hands before you do something is not an empty ritual, even when they don’t vote the way you want them to," she writes. The White House can't just ignore the War Powers Act whenever it's convenient. "The Administration needs to be interrogated, sharply, about just what it thinks is going to happen after the two or maybe three days of missile strikes that leaks tell us to expect."