Obama is once again stuck on a national security crisis. Déjà vu for Obama in Syria

Barack Obama has a bad case of Syria déjà vu.

Nearly one year after he stood at the brink of ordering military action against Syria — but said he’d only step across if Congress agreed — the president finds himself in an eerily similar situation.


Then, as now, the world has been horrified by violence in the region. Then, as now, the drumbeat of increased military operations has grown louder. And then, as now, a president whose political rise was partly defined by his opposition to interventions abroad must decide whether to escalate American involvement, either on his own or with permission from Congress.

( Also on POLITICO: Obama to James Foley's killers: 'America does not forget')

So Obama is once again stuck on a national security crisis: worried about political support on Capitol Hill for a vote on intervention and held back by his own visceral resistance to unilateral military action.

The White House, for the record, says this is not the same dilemma Obama faced last Labor Day.

“The goal of the mission from last year was aimed squarely at the [Bashar] Assad regime,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. “The situation a year later is markedly different.”

Last year, the White House argues, the question was whether the U.S. should put its combat boot onto the scales of the Syrian civil war, tipping them in favor of moderate fighters in their struggle against Assad, Syria’s president. Now, the question is whether the U.S. should expand to Syria its current operations in Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which Pentagon and other leaders warn is an ever-growing threat to the U.S.

( Also on POLITICO: Obama vows to remove ISIL 'cancer')

“They can be contained. Not in perpetuity,” said Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey. “This is an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated. … Can they be defeated without addressing that part of their organization which resides in Syria? The answer is no. That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a nonexistent border.”

Already, military surveillance flights over Syria have begun, according to reports on Tuesday, enabling commanders to get a real-time picture of what’s happening on the ground and select potential targets if they get the order.

Members of Congress are feeling déjà vu of their own — now, like last year, they are worried about the prospect of a tough vote to authorize an attack in Syria. Defense advocates already complain that Obama has done nothing to sell his plan to arm and train vetted Syrian rebels, and even some of his own allies worry he will put in a similarly lackluster effort if he decides to order an attack sooner.

( Also on POLITICO: Candidate uses Foley video in ad)

“I urge the administration to use the next two weeks to clearly define the strategy and objectives of its mission against ISIL, then bring it to Congress for a debate and authorization vote,” said Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. “I have long stressed that Congress must formally approve the initiation of significant military action — it is what the framers of the Constitution intended, and Congress and the executive have a responsibility to do the hard work to build a political consensus in support of our military mission.”

Like last year, Republican defense hawks have repeatedly urged Obama to do more militarily and have lambasted the White House for not taking strong enough action — even after Obama authorized airstrikes in Iraq.

“The president is becoming derelict in his duties as commander in chief to protect our homeland by not aggressively confronting ISIL wherever they reside, including Syria,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in a statement.

But even as hawks call for more action and doves press for congressional authorization first, the response from lawmakers is more muted this time around, despite the gruesome beheading of American journalist James Foley.

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said there is a “collective horror and outrage” in Congress toward ISIL, also known as ISIS, but he’s skeptical about U.S. airstrikes in Syria. He said he’s concerned they would draw the U.S. into the middle of the ongoing civil war.

“If there’s going to be significant military action, Congress has to vote on it,” Welch said in an interview. “The American people don’t want us in another war in the Middle East. They’re horrified by what ISIS did, but they’re skeptical that anything close to boots on the ground is going to resolve the situation favorably.”

Other allies have argued the president should definitely not go to Congress — Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) warned that Republicans would turn any potential bill into a feeding frenzy.

“I think it’s different,” Cohen said on CNN on Tuesday. “I support the president’s action, and I see no reason to come to Congress. Because if he does, it will just become a circus. Congress is dysfunctional, and no matter what the president does, Republicans will oppose it and find reason to find fault.”

Even some of the lawmakers most skeptical about using U.S. military force in the Middle East say the Islamic State poses a significant danger.

“ISIS is a threat — it’s a dangerous organization, it’s a terrorist organization,” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the lone lawmaker to vote against the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, said on MSNBC. “We need to be in Washington, D.C., talking about the pros and cons and talking about what options are available for the president.”

So far, congressional leaders have not indicated they plan to bring forward any authorization measures, including for the ongoing airstrikes in Iraq, which show no sign of slowing. The Obama administration has notified Congress of its intentions under the War Powers Resolution but has not suggested it would seek action before the legislation’s 60-day window is reached.

Republicans pounced on Obama after he ordered the 2011 military intervention in Libya, and later after the exchange of top Taliban prisoners for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, because critics said the president kept Congress in the dark. But Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby pointed out Tuesday that Obama has sent several War Powers Resolution notifications to the Hill and kept its leaders briefed.

“There’s been a concerted effort to keep Congress informed,” Kirby said.

Another key change between the present and past Syria dilemmas is the immediacy of the danger. Last year, the risk was that Assad would continue to use chemical weapons to kill his own people in large numbers. Today, the danger is that ISIL will gather strength in Syria and Iraq and be able to launch major terrorist attacks against Europe and the U.S.

“The threat is significantly different this time around,” said retired Lt. Gen. Dave Barno, now a senior fellow with the Center for a New American Security. “A year ago, we were dealing with essentially an international reaction to the use of chemical weapons, … which was horrible and terrible but a much more indirect type of threat. This is shaping up to be a much more direct threat — although that’s open for debate.”

Burgess Everett contributed to this report.