Syria is major test for Obama

President likely to bypass U.N., Congress in attack decision

President grapples with legal and moral issues over possible U.S. military action .

WASHINGTON — The apparent shower of poisonfilled artillery shells that killed hundreds of Syrian civilians last week is testing President Barack Obama’s views on military intervention, international law and the U.N. as no previous foreign crisis has done.

The former constitutional law professor, who came to office determined to end what some critics called the cowboy foreign policy of George W. Bush, now is wrestling with some of the same moral and legal realities that led Bush to invade Iraq without clear U.N. consent in 2003.

As U.S. officials discussed diplomatic and military options with allies in Europe and the Middle East, White House advisers indicated Tuesday that they are unlikely to seek either a vote in Congress or in the U.N. Security Council to authorize use of force. Last week, Obama said he had concerns about launching an attack on Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government without a U.N. mandate.

Russia and China would almost certainly veto or delay any U.N. resolution condemning Syria or sanctioning reprisals. Top British and French officials, who are likely to support U.S. military action, have signaled they don’t think a detour to the U.N. would be worthwhile.

White House officials cautioned that Obama is still considering options, but the administration appeared positioned to act quickly once he chooses a course. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on a visit to Brunei that the Pentagon was “prepared” to strike at targets in Syria and hinted such a move could come within days.

Some experts expect U.S. warships and submarines in the eastern Mediterranean to fire cruise missiles at Syrian targets as early as Thursday night for a campaign that could last two or three nights. Obama leaves next Tuesday for a four-day trip to Sweden and Russia, which strongly supports Assad’s government, for the G-20 economic summit.

One U.S. official who has been briefed on options in Syria says he believes the White House will seek a “medium” level of intensity in the Syria strikes, “just muscular enough not to get mocked,” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Assad’s allies Iran and Russia.

Obama and his top aides have communicated with key members of Congress, both to share intelligence and to explain current thinking. But White House aides made clear Tuesday that he will not wait for lawmakers to return from their monthlong recess on Sept. 9, and House and Senate leaders signaled no plans to call members back for an emergency session, as the British House of Commons is doing Thursday.

“I can’t imagine the president is going to do much more than the outreach he’s already doing,” said Jim Manley, former aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after a briefing that the administration was “proceeding cautiously.”

Still, a growing number of lawmakers from both parties pressed the White House to seek authorization from Congress.

Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., collected nearly three dozen signatures of House members on a letter he intended to send the White House. It states that military action without a congressional vote “would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution.” Congress stood ready to return for a debate on the issue, the letter stated.

Other lawmakers worried that a few days of missile strikes might be counterproductive.

Sen. Chris Murphy, DConn., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said thatwould be “little more than a slap on the wrist” to the Syrian government but could provoke retaliation from Assad that could draw America into “a much wider and much longer-term conflict.”

Due to safety concerns, the team of U.N. chemical weapons experts in Damascus was forced to scrub a planned visit Tuesday to one of the suburbs allegedly hit by the poison gas. They are scheduled to leave Syria on Sunday, but they probably would be withdrawn earlier if Washington warned that missile strikes were imminent.

The White House has not put forward a legal framework for armed action in Syria, which has not threatened or attacked U.S. citizens or facilities, the usual justification for punitive strikes. As recently as last Thursday, Obama warned about intervening without U.N. support.

Yet over the weekend, as more evidence of a chemical attack surfaced, the White House dramatically changed its language.

MUZAFFAR SALMAN/REUTERS PHOTO Attacks on civilian areas, including apparent gas attacks, are forcing Barack Obama to weigh his options for a response.