What will President Obama have to give away to Congress in order to get a resolution regarding military action in Syria?

im sure he will have no problem getting the rethuglicans vote. they crave war.

I think you have concisely misrepresented the situation. There was hardly any support at all for any action n Syria; going to Congress and putting the House on the spot to either agree or shut up was a brilliant move.

I don’t think there is anything to throw into this, it’s pretty much an up or down decision.

Hasn’t he already traded something away? This is the first time in a while a president has seemed to think that he needed permission to do something with the military.

I think wiser minds at the NSC and State Department personnel got the president’s ear after the cruise missile threats of a week ago—which may have just been a ploy to push disingenuous hawks in congress against the wall. It is obvious to many familiar with the situation in Syria that the most opportune time for military intervention is long past. The time to do this would have been the first few months of instability, when the moderates still had a say in the outcome of the revolution. Since then, the moderate faction, the business and middle class, has been neutralized, placed itself in exile and are now represented by the impotent Istanbul-based Syrian National Council. Essentially, this is an embryonic Syrian government wannabee on stand-by.

The war is now between the brutal Assad regime and the remaining five extremist factions—all six groups being undesirable. What is left, among others, is a large faction of extremist Sunnis who would like to eliminate all the non-islamic peoples of Syria including the Coptic Christians, the Jews, and especially all other Islamic “heretics,” including the Alawites, (who represent 12% of Syria’s population), and who have appealed to Assad for protection. There is the Free Syrian Army, which consists of several autonomous units—working in what are essentially independent cells—of anywhere between 15 guerillas to battalions of 1,000 fighters each, guided by the different factions of the Muslim Brotherhood, an umbrella group of Islamic extremists. There are al-Qaida units, imports from Saudi Arabia and Qatar led by Ayman al-Zawahiri. Within these groups are seething ethnic and religious rivalries, all purists who believe their way of honoring their gods are the only righteous way, or their ethnic group are the chosen ones and they will commit genocide to prove it. None of these, including the Assad regime, are consistent with the global status quo—and certainly not conducive to political economic relations with the west.

So, what to do? The wisest course for the US and its allies, considering the choices in Syria, is to play both sides out. When the anti-Assad factions begin to weaken, support them. When they become to strong, and appear to be winning, support Assad. Do this until the moderates in Istanbul can be strengthened into a viable government and then install them when all the combatants are sufficiently vanquished. It is cynical, and there are innocent victims, but there are no other alternatives at this time.

I agree with both @zenvelo and @Espiritus_Corvus. The decision to strike or not strike Syria is far more complex than reducing it to “The President got cold feet about going it alone” and “What will he have to give away to Congress?”—as most military decisions are. Most of us know—or think we know—only what we read or hear (usually second, third and fourth hand) which is usually simplistic, or only partially true, or biased, or unaware and unappreciative of political, military, diplomatic and other factors involved. I’m not smart or knowledgeable enough to know what the President should do, but I do know it’s one of the hardest things he will have to do in his life. Whatever our individual political beliefs, we should all cut him some slack.

The President wont have to give anything to Congress.by putting the ball in their court it gives US diplomats more time to work to get international support. even the head of the joint chiefs stated that we are ready to take action a day or week or even a month from now because it is not time sensitive.

From my perspective this is a win-win for Obama.
No matter what happens, he has taken the Syria out of the Republican Arsenal in the 2014 elections.
If Congress votes no, then he can claim that as much as he would like to punish Syria, the US is a “Nation of Laws” and Congress had voted otherwise.
If Congress votes yes, then they too are complicit in whatever happens. By an up vote, it is not just Obama who is responsible but the members of Congress as well.
If it turns out well, then his decision, which was approved by Congress, was the correct one.
If it all goes to hell then is was a joint screw-up and they are just as responsible for the terrible result as he is.
Of course there are two real losers, the Syrian people who are caught up in a terrible situation and being killed indiscriminately by both factions. And the American populace who will continue to live in fear of what “could” happen and continue to fund our own demise by pouring tax dollars into the military, Homeland Security, and organizations like the NSA who actively try to undermine and eliminate the rights of the people.

I am very glad he had the courage to back down a bit even if it makes him look weak. We’ve seen that “my way or the highway” isn’t the best way to run a country. He did a dumb thing when he stated his “red line” and I for one, am pleased that he is rethinking things.

As others have said he has already missed his window of opportunity. Now it’s just a matter of covering his butt. If congress votes yes, anything he does is thier fault. If they vote No, he takes no action which is I believe his prefferred path. I don’t see him giving up anything which ever way this goes. This is just a political move to avoid responsibility. Once again well played Mr. President.

I can’t add much to what @Espiritus_Corvus said. That’s excellent analysis. All I will add is that as we play one bad guy against the other, we have to do so subtly. Any government that appears to have been installed by us is doomed to failure, and that would have been true even if Obama had acted early to support the moderates while they were still in the fight.

A friend just mentioned that the most effective of the rebel forces is an Al Qaeda force. There doesn’t seem to be any good options in this fight although I do think preventing civilian death – if possible – is important.

We shouldn’t forget what this is about which is the use of sarin on civilians. A war crime has been committed and whoever ordered it should be pursued relentlessly and brought to trial. Firing tomahawk missiles into Syria is the wrong response.

Good Point @flutherother Teach those responsible by killing others. Yeah, that’ll larn ‘em.

@rojo and @janbb That tactic didn’t work so well for Bush leading up to Iraq and Afghanistan interventions, I don’t think it will work any better for Obama.

Here goes a thought. Why don’t we just stay out of it for once? Let some other countries handle it for once. It doesn’t matter what we do. Those countries love killing the crap out of each other. It’s been like that forever. Nothing is going to stop them. I understand it is about using gas but lets face it, both sides of the fence suck over there. You will just be replacing one terrorist for another.
Either way the innocent civilians are screwed.
Maybe we should just go in an allow all those who want to leave, to leave and then lock the criminals in and they can all battle to the death.
Well to answer your question, I agree with @rojo