President Barack Obama’s recent decision to seek congressional authorization before taking military action against the Bashar al-Assad regime lies at the intersection of “the need to do something” about Syria and Obama's personal reluctance to use force, especially at a time when the American people have no appetite for another war.

With regard to the first, the need for the United States to enforce — and reinforce — the international ban on the use of chemical weapons is imperative. US inaction on this score would otherwise send the message to Assad that he may continue killing his own rebellious people with impunity. Over and above that, US inaction would also signal to Iran and North Korea that Washington is not all that serious about confronting their nuclear proliferation efforts.

Moreover, the US president’s decision to delay the strike has important implications — both positive and negative. On the upside, congressional approval would strengthen his hand politically; on the downside, turning to Congress is viewed, at least in the Middle East, as a sign of US presidential weakness. Delaying the use of force against Assad also enables the Syrian leader to gain time, both to strengthen his defenses against the potential use of US power and to crush the nearly three-year popular uprising against him.

With regard to the second vector, the decision itself to strike Syria, Obama need not be overly cautious. If the endgame is, as both Washington and Moscow insist, a political solution to the intra-Syrian conflict that is in keeping with the US-Russian sponsored Geneva initiative — peace talks between representatives of the Assad regime and the Syrian opposition that are to lead to the establishment of a transitional government — a more vigorous military campaign against Assad’s forces (one which American public opinion seems opposed to) could be far more effective than the limited, pinprick operation Obama is said to be contemplating.