In this article Garret Epps, a former reporter for the Washington Post and a novelist, comments on the actions the United States has taken to intervene with Syria's chemical attacks in Damascus. He sides with 'the Framers', the authors of the American Constitution, who gave power to Congress rather than the President to declare war. He begins with a paradox which contrasts the great powers of Britain and the United States. The British Prime Minister, a man who could act independently of Parliament, consulted Parliament about whether or not Britain should intervene in Syria. However, in the U.S. President Barrack Obama, a man who had no precedent to declare war, did so. This action of the United States will come down in history according to Epps as, "fraught with legal, as well as military dangers- and that constitutionally, as well as in foreign-policy terms, it may be a problem with no solution." Epps continues by giving a background for Obama's choice to declare war. He then shows the state at which the world finds itself at. _At one end of the spectrum is Syria, who committed a crime against humanity when it used chemical weapons to kill masses. On the other end is the United Nations, a power who finds itself powerless when confined from taking any action by threats from China and Russia, who have their own selfish agendas. He then goes into the politics of the choice Obama made, highlighting how previous presidents had to take similar courses of action when Americans were threatened abroad or action was needed internationally. Nevertheless, he argues that the case in Syria does not demand a quick decision and can be prolonged. He further states that it was an unnecessary call for the time being, especially when there is no other force supporting the course of action Obama wants to take. He again goes back to the Founding Fathers and how their intentions in giving power to make war to Congress was a good thing. Furthermore, he does acknowledge the pressure put on the President and the action he must take, not by his own power, but by the need there is for the United States to make a move for what is right when no other nation will.
This article by Garret Epps is effective, it argues its points well by backing them up through credible sources. It is more informative than persuasive, although it is underlined by the author's biased opinion. He backs up his statement well when he states that a president should not have the power to wage war. He does so when he uses evidence from previous occurrences of Presidents taking power into their own hands. He further bases his information on quotes from well-known political figures and based on historical events. His article is effective for it conveys the events surrounding this decision and he is straight to the point when he deliberates his arguments. His article has a good flow to it and is consistent with the thesis he gives. The image used in the article further enhances his article's message by depicting President Obama in a way which shows his disapproval of the lack of reaction throughout the world. The author is also very articulate, varying his sentence structure and creating an interest in the reader by delivering his message in a to the point fashion. He does, although, leave space for the reader to create his own assumptions both in what course of action the President will take and in whether or not it would be the right decision if he did declare war. Thus, Epps' article is effective and argues a fervent case about the power division in government and the lack of action around the world. He tries to arouse the reader's patriotism when he outlines that there is a need for the United States to act, yet he emphasizes that this need can be satisfied by a more deliberate and thought over course of action.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/08/the-authority-to-declare-war-a-power-barack-obama-does-not-have/279212/