WASHINGTON has emptied for the Labor Day weekend: the politicos have obeyed the eternal demand that they should see something of life beyond the Beltway, while those who stayed behind are mostly concerned with such important matters as the state of the ligaments holding together the right knee of the Redskins’ star quarterback. One thing that had been thought immune to this general torpor was America’s response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, where 1,429 people were killed in a single attack on August 21st. The aircraft carriers and submarines were in place, the Tomahawk missiles readied and the president would, rumour suggested, give the order to go before Sunday turned into Monday. Instead, Barack Obama stood in the Rose Garden on August 31st and explained that he was going to wait until Congress had its say, which means that America’s response will not come before the recess ends on September 9th. Mr Obama’s speech was both powerful and characteristically Obama-ish. He began by echoing his secretary of state, John Kerry, who on August 30th had explained why America’s intelligence agencies were convinced that the Syrian regime was responsible for the attacks. He argued that the Syrian regime’s actions were an affront to human dignity and, since a plea to launch cruise missiles for humanitarian reasons might sound discordant, added that striking Syria was in America’s national interest. A decision to do nothing would, he argued, end the country’s credibility when it came to its other interests, such as preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Then came the switchback. In the past few days many members of Congress have demanded a say on what America should do in Syria, claiming that denying them the chance to do so would be downright unconstitutional. While in some cases this was just another opportunity to attack the president, there is a real argument buried within for those who enjoy musing on whether there is a difference between taking military action (which presidents can do) and declaring war (which is the preserve of Congress). In the Rose Garden Mr Obama asserted that he had the authority to order the strikes and that he was sure that this is what America should do. Even so, he was going to ask Congress for its approval first.

Mr Obama has made a habit of such contortions. Thus Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked details of America’s spying to the Guardian newspaper, is, in Mr Obama’s telling, a traitor who nevertheless prompted a useful debate (which the president was planning to have anyway), even though the subject of that debate would not have been public had Mr Snowden not made it so. In the case of Syria the manoeuvre is politically clever. It also comes with the added merit that it will force congressmen, however briefly, to behave like grown-ups. But it risks creating a problem for Mr Obama further down the line. If he is convinced that America should act and convinced that he has the authority to order that action, what does he do if Congress votes against him?

That seems unlikely, but it is not impossible. A recent poll for NBC (with a small sample of just 291) suggests that America leans towards supporting missile strikes to discourage further use of chemical weapons (the split is 50% for and 44% against, with the rest undecided). If that is inconclusive it does at least suggest that voters are persuadable. Even so, the vote will pose an interesting test for the two parties. For Democrats, it will be an examination of the strength of anti-war feeling: after all, firing rockets around the Middle East is the sort of thing that George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld do. For the GOP it will be the first war vote since the emergence of the tea-party strand of Republicanism, which contains within it both a thread of Team America neoconservativism and one whose dearest wish is to be left alone by the world.

Meanwhile in Syria, where over 100,000 people have already been killed, the shelling and the shooting continue. One part of Mr Obama’s speech is impossible to argue with: given that the West has been watching Syrians kill each other for two years, waiting an extra ten days to intervene is unlikely to make much difference.

(Photo credit: AFP)