Obama's U-turn on Syria surprises US media

US President Barack Obama's surprise U-turn on launching retaliatory military strikes on Syria over its suspected use of chemical weapons has evoked mixed response from mainstream American media.
"President Obama said Saturday that the United States must respond militarily to Syria's August 21 gassing of its own people. We agree. He also said he would seek congressional authorisation before proceeding. We think that's right, too, though the approach isn't risk-free," the Editorial Board of The Washington Post commented.
The case for US action (against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime) is strong, it noted.
"If there is no response, the Assad regime will use them again, on an even larger scale, and other dictators in future conflicts will calculate that they, too, can use these ghastly weapons at no cost. And there will be no response if the US does not take the lead.

"We also argued previously that Mr. Obama should seek the maximum congressional buy-in consistent with operational imperatives. The president said Saturday that there is no military reason for haste, but there are nonetheless risks in delay, the editorial said.
The US has a strong interest in Assad's defeat and the victory of a coalition committed to democracy and pluralism, and there are steps short of committing troops that could make such an outcome more likely. "Any response to the August 21 atrocity should be framed with that larger goal in mind," it added.

The New York Times described Obama's move as "one of the riskiest gambles of his presidency," and said by abruptly changing course and postponing a military strike against the Syrian government, the US President effectively dared lawmakers to either stand by him or, as he put it, allow President al-Assad of Syria to get away with murdering children with unconventional weapons.

"By asking them to take a stand, Mr. Obama tried to break out of the isolation of the last week as he confronted taking action without the support of the United Nations, Congress, the public or Britain, a usually reliable partner in such international operations," the Times said.
The Los Angeles Times described Obama's decision to seek Congress' approval for a strike on Syria over its suspected use of chemical weapons as "a surprising surrender of presumed executive authority."
The president's abrupt announcement Saturday that he would seek congressional approval before trying to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces for their suspected use of chemical weapons marked a startling U-turn, the paper said.

"If the decision was intended to seize the moral high ground from his critics, it also represented a clear gamble by a famously deliberate president. He was making a surprising surrender - at least for now - of presumed executive authority," the paper commented.